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.
Spinner wrote: When your justification for why your chosen candidate will win is "people don't really think about who they should vote for, and if they did, my guy would lose", you might want to reconsider whether you've made the right choice.
problem is Trump is not my Guy, hes just not Hillary. and he has the best chance of beating her.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Kilkrazy wrote: Luck created an opportunity and Trump took advantage.
I wonder if he's regretting it now.
I can only imagine that the racist and sexist way Trump has chosen to run his campaign will have all but destroyed his brand. I'm thinking the biggeat regret he may have will be after he loses and the smoke clears, the impact on his businesses could be disastrous.
and you still think he will lose, problem is you think people vote rationally, they don't they vote emotionally. all it takes is certain things to happen and people will flock to vote Trump and one of those is the camp I am in which is anyone but Hillary.
I'm in the camp of seeing this as an opportunity to possibly create a 3 party system. At least have 3 parties getting recognition and funding. I'm normally a republican voter for the presidency (my views align slightly better with them than with Dem's in most elections) but America can withstand 4-8 years of Hilary. I'm putting my vote behind Gary Johnson. We desperately need a moderate party and this is a chance to take a step in that direction.
To be fair while I think Hilary is a lock (I know a LOT of normally republican voters that are either staying home or voting libertarian) I think American could also withstand 4 years of Trump. We've had ridiculous and crazy presidents before in our republic. It'll weather Trump. Shoot I'd weather Trump if it brought back a moderate republican party happily no matter what the world might think of us for 4 years. Granted I also think most of the world would understand they only had to wait 4 years for a changing of the guard too so it won't get to crazy.
Best Painted (2015 Adepticon 40k Champs)
They Shall Know Fear - Adepticon 40k TT Champion (2012 & 2013) & 40k TT Best Sport (2014), 40k TT Best Tactician (2015 & 2016)
Spinner wrote: When your justification for why your chosen candidate will win is "people don't really think about who they should vote for, and if they did, my guy would lose", you might want to reconsider whether you've made the right choice.
problem is Trump is not my Guy, hes just not Hillary. and he has the best chance of beating her.
You spend an awful lot of time defending someone who isn't your guy whenever he says something crazy or racist.
So your argument is that if people really thought about it, they'd vote for Hillary, but they won't because people are emotional and irrational and therefore they'll vote for Trump? Again, you, uh. If you believe that, you still might want to reconsider your stance.
To be fair while I think Hilary is a lock (I know a LOT of normally republican voters that are either staying home or voting libertarian) I think American could also withstand 4 years of Trump. We've had ridiculous and crazy presidents before in our republic. It'll weather Trump. Shoot I'd weather Trump if it brought back a moderate republican party happily no matter what the world might think of us for 4 years. Granted I also think most of the world would understand they only had to wait 4 years for a changing of the guard too so it won't get to crazy.
I think the best chance for a more moderate Republican party is what's happening right now. Infighting, implosion, and a joke of a candidate being the best they can offer. They've spent so, so long cultivating the crazy and politically grandstanding that this is really the only way. Trump needs to lose, and then they need to have a good, long, honest look at why that happened and rethink some basic ideas.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/06/21 16:56:04
Hulksmash wrote: I'm putting my vote behind Gary Johnson. We desperately need a moderate party and this is a chance to take a step in that direction.
Libertarianism is not moderate. Libertariamism is Capital A anarchy for old people and rednecks. Libertarianism is flying bat gak crazy.
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.'”
Kilkrazy wrote: Luck created an opportunity and Trump took advantage.
I wonder if he's regretting it now.
I can only imagine that the racist and sexist way Trump has chosen to run his campaign will have all but destroyed his brand. I'm thinking the biggeat regret he may have will be after he loses and the smoke clears, the impact on his businesses could be disastrous.
and you still think he will lose, problem is you think people vote rationally, they don't they vote emotionally. all it takes is certain things to happen and people will flock to vote Trump and one of those is the camp I am in which is anyone but Hillary.
Yes, I do. His numbers are dismal, he doesn't have a professional campaign, bit mostly he has an insurmountable disadvantage (of his own making) with blacks, single women, and Latinos. Significant improvement with these demographics would be required to win, and I think the damage is already done here for Trump.
Spinner wrote: When your justification for why your chosen candidate will win is "people don't really think about who they should vote for, and if they did, my guy would lose", you might want to reconsider whether you've made the right choice.
problem is Trump is not my Guy, hes just not Hillary. and he has the best chance of beating her.
You spend an awful lot of time defending someone who isn't your guy whenever he says something crazy or racist.
So your argument is that if people really thought about it, they'd vote for Hillary, but they won't because people are emotional and irrational and therefore they'll vote for Trump? Again, you, uh. If you believe that, you still might want to reconsider your stance.
no to be honest if people voted rationally neither of these candidates would be options, and like I said even if they said Trump made a pact with Satan I would still vote for him because he is not Hillary (that and i'm an Athiest/Agnostic)
but then again who ever takes the presidency will be a martyr since something is coming the politicians know it (notice none of the ones who would have made a good president ran?) this country is in for a rough few years.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Spinner wrote: When your justification for why your chosen candidate will win is "people don't really think about who they should vote for, and if they did, my guy would lose", you might want to reconsider whether you've made the right choice.
problem is Trump is not my Guy, hes just not Hillary. and he has the best chance of beating her.
You spend an awful lot of time defending someone who isn't your guy whenever he says something crazy or racist.
So your argument is that if people really thought about it, they'd vote for Hillary, but they won't because people are emotional and irrational and therefore they'll vote for Trump? Again, you, uh. If you believe that, you still might want to reconsider your stance.
no to be honest if people voted rationally neither of these candidates would be options, and like I said even if they said Trump made a pact with Satan I would still vote for him because he is not Hillary (that and i'm an Athiest/Agnostic)
but then again who ever takes the presidency will be a martyr since something is coming the politicians know it (notice none of the ones who would have made a good president ran?) this country is in for a rough few years.
Probably the main reason why our best and brightest do not currently want to run for President is the total forfeiture of privacy involved.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/21 17:03:43
Spinner wrote: When your justification for why your chosen candidate will win is "people don't really think about who they should vote for, and if they did, my guy would lose", you might want to reconsider whether you've made the right choice.
problem is Trump is not my Guy, hes just not Hillary. and he has the best chance of beating her.
You spend an awful lot of time defending someone who isn't your guy whenever he says something crazy or racist.
So your argument is that if people really thought about it, they'd vote for Hillary, but they won't because people are emotional and irrational and therefore they'll vote for Trump? Again, you, uh. If you believe that, you still might want to reconsider your stance.
no to be honest if people voted rationally neither of these candidates would be options, and like I said even if they said Trump made a pact with Satan I would still vote for him because he is not Hillary (that and i'm an Athiest/Agnostic)
but then again who ever takes the presidency will be a martyr since something is coming the politicians know it (notice none of the ones who would have made a good president ran?) this country is in for a rough few years.
I, uh.
Hm.
Something is coming? I'd like to guess! Is it aliens? I hope it's aliens, untold hours of XCOM have prepared me for this day. And then we can elect Bill Pullman!
Out of curiosity, who would you describe as a good 'rational' candidate?
Spinner wrote: When your justification for why your chosen candidate will win is "people don't really think about who they should vote for, and if they did, my guy would lose", you might want to reconsider whether you've made the right choice.
problem is Trump is not my Guy, hes just not Hillary. and he has the best chance of beating her.
You spend an awful lot of time defending someone who isn't your guy whenever he says something crazy or racist.
So your argument is that if people really thought about it, they'd vote for Hillary, but they won't because people are emotional and irrational and therefore they'll vote for Trump? Again, you, uh. If you believe that, you still might want to reconsider your stance.
no to be honest if people voted rationally neither of these candidates would be options, and like I said even if they said Trump made a pact with Satan I would still vote for him because he is not Hillary (that and i'm an Athiest/Agnostic)
but then again who ever takes the presidency will be a martyr since something is coming the politicians know it (notice none of the ones who would have made a good president ran?) this country is in for a rough few years.
I, uh.
Hm.
Something is coming? I'd like to guess! Is it aliens? I hope it's aliens, untold hours of XCOM have prepared me for this day. And then we can elect Bill Pullman!
Out of curiosity, who would you describe as a good 'rational' candidate?
not aliens, I see a major economic disaster that will make the last recession look like a cake walk.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
And seriously, though. Who would you pick as a good candidate for people voting rationally? Preferably someone who is or was running, but if you don't think anyone qualifies for...whatever reason, I'm curious to know who you'd pick.
And seriously, though. Who would you pick as a good candidate for people voting rationally? Preferably someone who is or was running, but if you don't think anyone qualifies for...whatever reason, I'm curious to know who you'd pick.
well for Republican either Ryan or Romney would have been a good choice
as to Democrats, harder to call, but it would have to be someone outside the political mainstream like Morgan Freeman?
as it goes Trump beat out his contenders because he had something they did not, Charisma, Charisma is a strong force.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
I'd vote Freeman's beautiful, beautiful voice into any office in the land. Can you imagine a State of the Union delivered by that man? That's clearly an emotional response, though.
Can you explain your reasoning behind picking those three as rational choices? Especially Morgan Freeman.
I'd call what Trump has a 'forceful personality', not necessarily charisma. He's colorful, a well-known name, and played well to the crazy types as well as people too dissatisfied with 'politics as usual' to really look at him beyond his status as an outsider. Charisma typically means more people like you than dislike you.
Not trying to pile on, but what experience does Morgan Freeman have that lead you to believe he'd be a good presidential candidate. He's an actor. Ronald Regan was also an actor, but he had executive experience as the Governor of California for 8 years.
Morgan Freeman has just been acting and doing commercials...
Spinner wrote: I'd vote Freeman's beautiful, beautiful voice into any office in the land. Can you imagine a State of the Union delivered by that man? That's clearly an emotional response, though.
Can you explain your reasoning behind picking those three as rational choices? Especially Morgan Freeman.
I'd call what Trump has a 'forceful personality', not necessarily charisma. He's colorful, a well-known name, and played well to the crazy types as well as people too dissatisfied with 'politics as usual' to really look at him beyond his status as an outsider. Charisma typically means more people like you than dislike you.
like you said Freeman's voice, if thats not good enough then his average stance when it comes to politics, he is supporting Clinton and even doing ads for her, his politics are in line with Clinton's in certain aspects,
Romney is about as middle of the road you can get hes not far right nor far left hes right in the middle
Ryan? pretty much on par with Romney, but he would have the general consensus of not being in politics long so not being polluted by them as much.
Charisma is compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others, and when it comes to snake oil salesmen Trump is #1.
jasper76 wrote: Not trying to pile on, but what experience does Morgan Freeman have that lead you to believe he'd be a good presidential candidate. He's an actor. Ronald Regan was also an actor, but he had executive experience as the Governor of California for 8 years.
Morgan Freeman has just been acting and doing commercials...
and you think he could do worse with the current candidates?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/21 17:47:45
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Absolutely. Morgan Freeman is a celebrity. I have no reason to think he'd be better as POTUS than Tim Robbins, Jerry Seinfeld, or Ariana Grande.
BTW, Ryan and Romney are not moderate by any stretch of the imagination. They may seem moderate with people like Cruz and Palin in the mix. For example, Trump is much more moderate than either Romney or Ryan on most issues that are important to conservative voters.
Whilst one appreciates the in political life moreso than any other it's possible to fail upwards, the idea that Romney would be a good choice is bewildering.
... have I traveled to Earth -2 ?
Is this like in "Fringe" .....
........ actually, thinking about it, there are actually Red Arrow and Red Lantern comics ...
... bugger.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
jasper76 wrote: Absolutely. Morgan Freeman is a celebrity. I have no reason to think he'd be better as POTUS than Tim Robbins, Jerry Seinfeld, or Ariana Grande.
BTW, Ryan and Romney are not moderate by any stretch of the imagination. They may seem moderate with people like Cruz and Palin in the mix. For example, Trump is much more moderate than either Romney or Ryan on most issues that are important to conservative voters.
I don't see those 3 being good Presidents, don't know how to explain it, its just a feeling Freeman would be a good President.
Whilst one appreciates the in political life moreso than any other it's possible to fail upwards, the idea that Romney would be a good choice is bewildering.
my point was better then Trump.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/21 17:57:35
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Let it be known that Morgan Freeman's soothing, aloe vera-and-hot-chocolate voice would be a rational reason for voting him into the Presidency of the United States.
Whilst one appreciates the in political life moreso than any other it's possible to fail upwards, the idea that Romney would be a good choice is bewildering.
... have I traveled to Earth -2 ?
Is this like in "Fringe" .....
........ actually, thinking about it, there are actually Red Arrow and Red Lantern comics ...
... bugger.
Once you buy a lemon, you miss your old car, even though you hated it then.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/21 18:00:05
Regional heats at first of course, then the big live televised final.
It's be a lot cheaper, probably.
As opposed to policy discussions they could talk about favourite recipes , types of animals they like, etc etc .
Even get to mention world peace !
The rotating panel of judges get to act as VP.
Is the world ready for a world in which Adam Levine , Cee-lo Green and/or Usher have the nuclear codes.....
... tune in next week to find out !
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/21 18:04:38
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Wasn't Morgan Freeman the president in "Deep Impact'? His presidency led to the Earth being hit by an asteroid!
Everyone knows Movies lead to reality, just look at "The Siege" as exhibit A. If Freeman is elected, we will be hit by an Asteroid!
and you say that like its a bad thing? and besides which the Earth was mostly saved except for the East Coast.
As it goes the Spartans had it right when they had kings (2 at a time?)after their kings term was done he was judged to see if he was a good king. if not, oh well off with his head.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/21 18:25:13
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Something is coming? I'd like to guess! Is it aliens? I hope it's aliens, untold hours of XCOM have prepared me for this day. And then we can elect Bill Pullman!
Pretty certain it's Winter.
We'll all get killed by dragonfire and/or frozen zombies, but we do get to laugh at those who believed all those scientific predictions about Global warming.
Experts ? Like they know anything !
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Hulksmash wrote: I'm putting my vote behind Gary Johnson. We desperately need a moderate party and this is a chance to take a step in that direction.
Libertarianism is not moderate. Libertariamism is Capital A anarchy for old people and rednecks. Libertarianism is flying bat gak crazy.
It's the name of the party not the actual political agenda of the party. Be serious for a second and take a step away from the hyperbole. The candidates for the part are both term limit leaders of states. They were republicans but the republican party is insane and wants to invade our lives as much as the democrats do just for different (and in some ways to me, worse) stuff. It really is where most of the moderates should be able to find their ground. If you can't tell the difference between actual ideology and the definition of a term I don't know what to tell you.
Best Painted (2015 Adepticon 40k Champs)
They Shall Know Fear - Adepticon 40k TT Champion (2012 & 2013) & 40k TT Best Sport (2014), 40k TT Best Tactician (2015 & 2016)
Whilst one appreciates the in political life moreso than any other it's possible to fail upwards, the idea that Romney would be a good choice is bewildering.
Truthfully, I think Romney would have beat Clinton in a general election, barring some unexpected circumstance. Her negatives are very high, and the biggest problem he had was "relatability". Now that he's done something we've all done and can empathize with (failed at something) I think his favorables would have been much higher this election
The problem is he would never have survived the primaries, look what Trump did to poor ol' Jeb!.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/21 19:27:17
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
Yeah, Trump would have eaten Romney alive...Romney is way too nice a person to have survived that primary race. If that race taught us anything, it's that people who vote in Republican primaries are sick of having candidates like Romney.
Hulksmash wrote: I'm putting my vote behind Gary Johnson. We desperately need a moderate party and this is a chance to take a step in that direction.
Libertarianism is not moderate. Libertariamism is Capital A anarchy for old people and rednecks. Libertarianism is flying bat gak crazy.
It's the name of the party not the actual political agenda of the party. Be serious for a second and take a step away from the hyperbole. The candidates for the part are both term limit leaders of states. They were republicans but the republican party is insane and wants to invade our lives as much as the democrats do just for different (and in some ways to me, worse) stuff. It really is where most of the moderates should be able to find their ground. If you can't tell the difference between actual ideology and the definition of a term I don't know what to tell you.
The Libertarian Party of America wants to do away with taxation and allow unfettered "free market" capitalism. It's a strange mix of wild west and industrial revolution ideals. It's basically a masturbatory cowboy fantasy for frustrated white guys. It's not a coherent policy.
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.'”
