|
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. |
On November 02 2016 08:27 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 08:25 WolfintheSheep wrote: This talk about money influencing politics feels like one of those Americentric pipe dreams again.
Plenty of other countries have much lower campaign limits, much shorter campaign cycles and tighter restrictions on lobbying funds in general (as per usual, Canada and several EU nations are the examples).
Voter turnout isn't that much different, the politicians aren't less political, and the corporate representation isn't that different really.
Not to say that money doesn't influence politics, but that's its beyond naive to think that less money makes your politics better. What are the policies that 80%+ of Canadians agree on that you don't get implemented? Well, not really comparable because the British Parliamentary doesn't have a Senate, Congress and President who can all fight each other, and a majority election basically means 4 years of one party running the show completely.
|
On November 02 2016 08:41 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 08:34 Aquanim wrote:On November 02 2016 08:26 Leporello wrote:On November 02 2016 08:20 oneofthem wrote:
in a year without trump sanders would get destroyed. The only thing that destroyed Bernie this year, or any year, is this platitude, which is baseless. And the word "socialist". And some other things, like his actual policies. Once again, for the record, I'd have preferred to see Sanders elected and his politics are a lot closer to mine than any of the other candidates... but to say that he would have waltzed through this election is a statement not based in a whole lot of facts. Head-to-head polling during the primaries, when the Republicans were busy dissing Clinton (to Sanders' benefit), is not very meaningful. Would Sanders be doing better than Clinton? I don't know. It's entirely possible. It's also entirely possible he'd be getting slaughtered as a socialist Commie and we'd all be wishing the Democrats had nominated somebody more... electable, to coin a term. (Seriously Legal, knock it off. If you must make those posts contribute something new and interesting in them.) Sanders would be doing better than Clinton, because the polling-numbers have always said exactly that. ... Sanders also hasn't been attacked by much of anybody (hell, he was almost praised by some Republicans, for their own tactical purposes) and I promise you he would have been attacked had he been nominated. Taking his polling numbers at face value is misleading.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 02 2016 08:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 08:39 oneofthem wrote: it's basically a very anti-hrc electorate. not really her fault. What? None of her thirty-year trail of bullshit that is of her own creation is her fault? it's not that much actual substantive problems.
she's demonstrably attentive and competent. the broad strategy is good. the team is good.
what else do you want?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 02 2016 08:30 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 08:24 Aquanim wrote:On November 02 2016 08:17 Nebuchad wrote:On November 02 2016 08:15 Blisse wrote: Okay LegalLord can you piss off with this sarcastic "electable" crap you've been parroting the last 50 pages, like you've complained about, it adds nothing to the conversation and has been debated to death already. He shouldn't piss off with that. It's important that people recognize the bullshit of the argument of electability when used against facts, as it was here, so that Clinton can't use it against the next Sanders 4 years from now. That's not the point. The point is that LegalLord has just been repeating it over and over for a long time and it's becoming obnoxious and tedious. Anybody who is going to get anything out of LegalLord saying it has already gotten it... a long time ago, even. Well you won't make yourself very electable with that attitude. It's important to sufficiently mock the people who gave an obscenely charitable interpretation to her criticisms in the primary, clinching the nomination but at the same time putting the entire election in the hands of the Republican Party, while having the balls to push one of the stupidest positions ever in trying to convince people she is electable. A fair bit of buyer's remorse around the choice to nominate her. hrc electability is more about her moderate attitude and considered, measured rhetoric. it's perceived as better for the general election.
a 'the silent majority' that acts as a marker for the overton window marking electable positions. http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/C/bo6683623.html
|
To be absolutely clear about my position: I put some serious question marks over the notion that nominating Clinton because of her inherent electability was a good idea. Her history and personality were always going to come back to bite her. + Show Spoiler +though I think I would describe her position on the political spectrum, aka kind of moderate, as electable (in at least some sense) - which was probably the context in which electability was used by at least somebody. Sanders' position on the political spectrum was kind of risky in that regard, putting aside his probably more electable demeanour and personal history
However, I am also dubious that Sanders would be in a better position. I don't believe there are sufficient facts to come to that conclusion (the value of his polling is a bit misleading) and there are some a priori arguments why Sanders would not be doing well (e.g. 'socialist' doesn't play well in the US).
(edit: ) I also don't see the point in memeing about it over and over. The point of this thread is interesting discussion, not to piss other people off. I can see why many people forget this, but please make an effort not to.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 02 2016 08:40 ticklishmusic wrote: legal does actually have good posts, though his stance as of late has gotten a bit stale. then again, the same could be said for most folks here myself included (except kwark continues to be entertaining in his british way, imo). The election is almost over (and we all have the proportionate election fatigue), we've covered most of the regular election-related posts, and we all know where everyone stands on the issues. With the exception of some of the more tangential points this thread has been quite stale for a while.
In a week we will know our fate, and after that we can move on to discussing policy and forget about electability and lying and genocidal Hillary and child rapists and so on. Looking forward to it.
|
Legallord is the Aaron Burr of the US politics thread. Involved with US politics, stands for ever little.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On November 02 2016 08:53 oneofthem wrote: i'll be hamilton then. Youre gunna get fucking shot and die a day later.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
And in a few centuries people will want to replace your place on the $10 bill with a black woman.
Well, just the US Treasurer really.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 02 2016 08:56 Plansix wrote:Youre gunna get fucking shot and die a day later. already happened, now im a popular broadway act
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Honestly I found it to be a rather insipid and dull play. Not sure why it was as popular as it was.
|
You are thinking of Jackson, who was a way shitter person than Hamilton.
|
On November 02 2016 08:09 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 08:06 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 08:03 LegalLord wrote: The 538 predictions are really starting to look like they could be worrying for Hillary. Florida is starting to lean red. NC is holding up, and so is her entire firewall. If things continue as they are at the moment I think she'll get 1-2 of the 6, and all of the firewall. A comfortable win. If they revert closer to the mean, 3-4. If they get any worse, just the firewall. She has a little more ground to lose but Florida was the final nail in Trump's coffin, losing ground there opens the election up. Well let's put it this way: Hillary's firewall corner states are about as safe as Florida was last week. More paths to victory have opened up for Trump.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PWlq5rP.png) he needs any one of those states assuming he gets florida, NC, and maybe Nevada -> but you need bigger states if you lose Nevada (not New Hampshire).
All of those states are an uphill battle.
|
On November 02 2016 09:00 LegalLord wrote: Honestly I found it to be a rather insipid and dull play. Not sure why it was as popular as it was. Wait, you saw Hamilton? Are you loaded or just happen to see super popular broadway show that are impossible to get tickets for?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 02 2016 09:00 Plansix wrote: You are thinking of Jackson, who was a way shitter person than Hamilton. Nope. People wanted to remove Jackson, the treasurer suggested they remove Hamilton instead because the $10 was next in line for revision. People complained.
I dunno, I'm a fan of Jackson really. Though he is the type of figure who would fall out of favor in modern times.
|
On November 02 2016 08:45 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 08:40 xDaunt wrote:On November 02 2016 08:39 oneofthem wrote: it's basically a very anti-hrc electorate. not really her fault. What? None of her thirty-year trail of bullshit that is of her own creation is her fault? it's not that much actual substantive problems. she's demonstrably attentive and competent. the broad strategy is good. the team is good. what else do you want? Let's start with good judgment, which she clearly has no history of exercising while in higher positions of power. Her term as secretary of state was simply bad. Beyond that, a little bit of honesty and little less corruption would go a long away. There's reason why a vast majority of people thinks she's a liar.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 02 2016 09:02 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 09:00 LegalLord wrote: Honestly I found it to be a rather insipid and dull play. Not sure why it was as popular as it was. Wait, you saw Hamilton? Are you loaded or just happen to see super popular broadway show that are impossible to get tickets for? I wish. A fair bit of it can be watched online though. It really sort of underwhelmed compared to how much hype I have heard for it in the past year.
|
On November 02 2016 09:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 08:45 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2016 08:40 xDaunt wrote:On November 02 2016 08:39 oneofthem wrote: it's basically a very anti-hrc electorate. not really her fault. What? None of her thirty-year trail of bullshit that is of her own creation is her fault? it's not that much actual substantive problems. she's demonstrably attentive and competent. the broad strategy is good. the team is good. what else do you want? Let's start with good judgment, which she clearly has no history of exercising while in higher positions of power. Her term as secretary of state was simply bad. Beyond that, a little bit of honesty and little less corruption would go a long away. There's reason why a vast majority of people thinks she's a liar.
A sizeable majority of people think that Obama wasn't born in the US but Ted Cruz was, let's just say that the people aren't always bringing their best people
|
On November 02 2016 09:06 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 09:02 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2016 09:00 LegalLord wrote: Honestly I found it to be a rather insipid and dull play. Not sure why it was as popular as it was. Wait, you saw Hamilton? Are you loaded or just happen to see super popular broadway show that are impossible to get tickets for? I wish. A fair bit of it can be watched online though. It really sort of underwhelmed compared to how much hype I have heard for it in the past year.
it might be one of those you gotta do it live things. broadway seems like it would be.
|
|
|
|