EPTOn October 22 2016 02:10 KwarK wrote:
+ Show Spoiler [insanity within] +
+ Show Spoiler [insanity within] +
The comments on that video, jesus. Hopefully the meltdown on Nov 9th will be contained to the internet so we can all enjoy it guilt free.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5730
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9129 Posts
The comments on that video, jesus. Hopefully the meltdown on Nov 9th will be contained to the internet so we can all enjoy it guilt free. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 22 2016 02:15 Dan HH wrote: The comments on that video, jesus. Hopefully the meltdown on Nov 9th will be contained to the internet so we can all enjoy it guilt free. So we can enjoy it death free. | ||
KwarK
United States42956 Posts
On October 22 2016 02:11 a_flayer wrote: He would run as an independent/3rd party. Look at the way he's been denouncing the GOP. Don't you think we could be looking at the rise of an actual relevant 3rd party built up from the Trumpeteers? Right now he doesn't have the support. Add four years of TrumpTV and perhaps more instability in the world (maybe partly due to Clinton's hawkishness), and the picture could change. But yeah, maybe four years is too soon, maybe its Trumps son who will take a stab at it in 10-20 years or so. But that's just wild speculation at this point of course. No, because it's a two party system. No matter how popular a third party becomes within their niche the most they can do is drag a major party to include more of their ideas in order to bring them back into the fold as part of the two party system. First Past The Post is a shitty electoral system for exactly that reason. If one coalition has 60% and the other 40% and the 60% coalition splinters then the 40% side will win election after election forever. At which point one of the two splinter parties will angle to steal some votes from the other by offering to incorporate some of their rival's policies within their own platform and suddenly we're back to two parties which are both broad coalitions. That's why the social conservatives are shacked up with the "no laws, no regulations" libertarians. They both know that they can't win without the other so they've made a bargain to vote together tactically. Tactical voting is the heart of a FPTP system, voting for exactly what you want is voting yourself into irrelevance. Instead you vote to say what you want in a first round and then politicians bid for you in the second round by offering policies that are like what you want. But the same politicians are also bidding for other peoples' votes and those people don't think the same as you so you end up with some of what you want and a lot of what you don't. But if you set the price at which you'll sell your vote unreasonably high then you just don't have a vote anymore. It's a balance. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On October 22 2016 02:11 a_flayer wrote: He would run as an independent/3rd party. Look at the way he's been denouncing the GOP. Don't you think we could be looking at the rise of an actual relevant 3rd party built up from the Trumpeteers? Right now he doesn't have the support. Add four years of TrumpTV and perhaps more instability in the world (maybe partly due to Clinton's hawkishness), and the picture could change. But yeah, maybe four years is too soon, maybe its Trumps son who will take a stab at it in 10-20 years or so. But that's just wild speculation at this point of course. Trump is going to be pretty old and in many ways the "I'm a winner" sheen that carried him through the primary has been heavily tarnished-his mantra of "I can stomp Clinton in the debates" which was repeated ad nauseam was revealed as the nonsense thinking about it for more than a few seconds showed it to be. That said unless the GOP actually go to proportional primary delegate allocation + superdelegates, he or a smarter surrogate would have a decent shot at a 2020 nomination I think. I'm actually only 95% sure Clinton will seek re-election just because of her age and the stigma her name now has. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 22 2016 02:18 KwarK wrote: No, because it's a two party system. No matter how popular a third party becomes within their niche the most they can do is drag a major party to include more of their ideas in order to bring them back into the fold as part of the two party system. First Past The Post is a shitty electoral system for exactly that reason. If one coalition has 60% and the other 40% and the 60% coalition splinters then the 40% side will win election after election forever. At which point one of the two splinter parties will angle to steal some votes from the other by offering to incorporate some of their rival's policies within their own platform and suddenly we're back to two parties which are both broad coalitions. That's why the social conservatives are shacked up with the "no laws, no regulations" libertarians. They both know that they can't win without the other so they've made a bargain to vote together tactically. The main parties are just aggregates that redefine their platform every few years. You don't change the party platform during the general--you change it in the reelection campaigns that happens every two years, you change it in the primaries, you change it in the convention. The general is simply when your aggregate faces off against the opposing aggregate and is not when you start arguing about just who is more progressive/conservative than the other. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On October 22 2016 02:24 ticklishmusic wrote: i predict that clinton will be a fairly popular president actually. probably start off pretty low, but probably improve her ratings after she grinds out some big bipartisan items like infrastructure and immigration reform. The problem is that for the GOP to keep any of the Trump voters, which they want to do, they need to treat her as Crooked Hillary rather than Madame President. Which means 4/8 more years of obstruction. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 22 2016 02:24 ticklishmusic wrote: i predict that clinton will be a fairly popular president actually. probably start off pretty low, but probably improve her ratings after she grinds out some big bipartisan items like infrastructure and immigration reform. I think she will be merely ok. People won't be super fond of her, she'll make plenty of bad mistakes, but we'll live. Whether or not she wins in 2020 will be a matter of whether the Republican Party can get its shit together in the next 4 years. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On October 22 2016 02:00 a_flayer wrote: I think Trump might start TrumpTV, continue spreading his message, and then possibly win the presidency next election. Maybe he will just buy RT instead of bothering to start from scratch. There's a lot of overlap there in terms of their general feeling towards the establishment. The problem is that the only things that would make TrumpTV popular are things that would make him unpopular for a general election. It's the same problem he's already having. The only way TrumpTV actually picks up an audience is if he just goes batshit crazy with his whining about the way the world is now. The less extreme and more coherent he is, the less noteworthy it will be. The market for reasonable political commentary is already pretty saturated. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On October 22 2016 02:27 TheTenthDoc wrote: The problem is that for the GOP to keep any of the Trump voters, which they want to do, they need to treat her as Crooked Hillary rather than Madame President. Which means 4/8 more years of obstruction. i think she's better with the screws that obama was. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On October 22 2016 02:06 Dan HH wrote: While WhiteDog is simply ignoring the last 80 years to make his WW3 point, Benjamin didn't see them. He didn't see nuclear proliferation, he didn't see the global economy becoming anywhere near as interdependent as it is now, he didn't see the unidirectional shift in the risk vs reward of massive wars. Although he did live to see Nazi Germany start WW2 after dealing with unemployment, as opposed to that passage. so if massive wars are gone, the question is whether war has disappeared or whether it has changed form. so after nuclear weapons then what? peace for 25 years until capitalism convulses in the 70s. production capacity cannot be put to use. and capital's response is to what? it's not just a war on labor, it's reagan, the cold war, and massive military deficit spending. then we get bill clinton, relative peace, reduction of the deficit. until that is we get the convulsion of the dot com crash followed by the fortuitous war on terror which morphs into the multi-trillion dollar occupation of iraq. is benjamin irrelevant? or is it just a change of form? | ||
|
KwarK
United States42956 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Also the logistics of an effective missile shield are tough. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On October 22 2016 02:36 KwarK wrote: At some point some dumb fuck will invent a completely effective missile shield. My money is on Israel for that one. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On October 22 2016 02:43 LegalLord wrote: We're very far off from a working missile shield. Shooting down an ICBM, much less multiple, is a really difficult task. A lot of money has been spent, the results have not been great, and missile technology is improving faster than progress in missile shields is being made. Also the logistics of an effective missile shield are tough. we need to build a wall! | ||
|
KwarK
United States42956 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On October 22 2016 02:36 KwarK wrote: At some point some dumb fuck will invent a completely effective missile shield. at qwhich point the offensive weapons will be something far more dnagerous than missiles. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
It really feels like talking to a brick wall sometimes. Ok, so I'm basing this on what I've seen as a bit of a shift in the Trump campaign of attacking the media, elections process, GOP, what happened with the e-mails within the democratic party. I'm not interested in any of these single issues, but the overall message that comes with it. I understand there are established ways of doing things, and I've heard your arguments countless of times in various different forms and contexts, and I don't disagree that they are valid points. But, if a significantly large group of people is upset at an established system, then change is possible. Trump has a large following. What if Trump does buy RT and builds on his current criticisms regarding the media, elections and all that jazz? Don't you think he could win over more people that voted on Bernie based on their belief that the money involved in it all is too damaging to the integrity of the system? Some of the points he seems to be trying to make need to be expressed better (while others need to be dropped entirely) and the efforts of his followers need to be focused on something other than this single election process, but it can affect change if the movement can be sustained. Am I just being arrogant and simply mistaken when I think that the major cause of the thing that is upsetting Trump supporters is part of the same situation that I am upset about, except my opinion is more nuanced and informed? + Show Spoiler + Or at least, I know my opinion in more nuance because I am aware of the full extent of my thoughts and don't know what everyone else is thinking. If Trump can get a sufficient amount of these people behind him, it is entirely possible that he could outnumber whatever would be left in the democratic and republican parties. Please tell me that we do agree on the fact that the current level of corporate involvement is incredibly damaging to your political system, right? I don't have to argue for that, do I? I'll admit that I'm basically just modifying the Trump campaign to suit my own agenda, but as I said at the start of this post, I think I've seen evidence of a bit of a shift in the campaign. Especially the fact that he really doesn't seem to want to concede losing on the 8th. Here's a few lines from a funny song that just happened to come up on my music player that seems to convey the same spirit of what Trump is doing: "We march until we drop, then we go over the top, singing out the days." (I know its about WW1, never mind that) | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15712 Posts
On October 22 2016 02:28 LegalLord wrote: I think she will be merely ok. People won't be super fond of her, she'll make plenty of bad mistakes, but we'll live. Whether or not she wins in 2020 will be a matter of whether the Republican Party can get its shit together in the next 4 years. I think the wildly unrealistic/exaggerated view people have of Clinton will serve her well. She will be a totally fine president, which, in a Trump'ish fashion, will be an enormously great performance, relative to expectations. I think people will be really surprised by how not-demonic she turns out to be. | ||
| ||
