|
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 June 02 2017 11:29 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 11:27 LegalLord wrote:On June 02 2017 11:26 Nyxisto wrote:
They should put up Tulsi Gabbard in 2020. Female war vet would be an autowin She's a little out there, but I do kinda like her - perhaps not for president but she's quite interesting. The DNC hates her though. That's not necessarily a bad thing/indicator. After watching the last election, i'm more wary of the people that the DNC endorses, rather than the ones they don't like. edit: With Bob Iger a philanthropist leaves the council, that certainly will help. I do understand Musk and Iger, but it's a bit of a short sighted protest - it frees up space for all the bannons out there.
Yeah, at this point, I would deeply favor an anti-DNC candidate, all things held equal. However, I'd stick with the establishment if I'm given the choice between a Ron Paul and a Bush. I'm choosing Mr. Turtle if I have a choice between some dude running on UBI and a reasonable DNC-endorsed shitbag.
|
You guys really, REALLY need a third major party over there.
Just saying.
Maybe the "Samoan Freedomfighters" or something. War vet Moan..Tulsi as president, Dwayne Johnson as, i don't know. There will be an office for him. Even if you'd have to create it.
|
I kinda like Gabbard, so you can bet that she will never be the democrat nominee.
|
Actually, from what i'm reading, she isn't a bad candidate.
The problem being, she doesn't really fit in either of the two parties in the US. She's too conservative for the progressive liberals, but she doesn't seem as retarded as the usual religious zealots or apes that run for the GOP.
|
Amy klobuchar would sweep the midwestern states that Democrats need to win for the presidency. A Californian or new york candidate doesn't help them electorally.
|
On June 02 2017 11:42 Sermokala wrote:
Amy klobuchar would sweep the midwestern states that Democrats need to win for the presidency. A Californian or new york candidate doesn't help them electorally.
Again, this is so weird.
You have to select the candidate based on geography, rather than political alignment. Is it weird that people outside the US are baffled by statements like this?
|
|
|
On June 02 2017 11:27 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 11:26 Nyxisto wrote:
They should put up Tulsi Gabbard in 2020. Female war vet would be an autowin She's a little out there, but I do kinda like her - perhaps not for president but she's quite interesting. The DNC hates her though.
If we have learned anything from this last election, thats a good thing.
|
On June 02 2017 11:44 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 11:42 Sermokala wrote:
Amy klobuchar would sweep the midwestern states that Democrats need to win for the presidency. A Californian or new york candidate doesn't help them electorally. Again, this is so weird. You have to select the candidate based on geography, rather than political alignment. Is it weird that people outside the US are baffled by statements like this?
Its the uniqueness of america that is hard for other countries to understand. We're a federation of seperate states with vastly diverse climates and cultures. The only way you keep something like that togeather is for a federation which is different then all the other nation-states that came togeather for non artifical reasons. It would be like if most of south america joined togeather into one country or most of south africa. Not to mention a two party system instead of the chaos of multiple parties.
Then again at the same time its the same selection of demographics that you need to win an election as in all elections. I think india only knows something comparable.
I don't think she understands what "taking responsibility for losing the election" means.
|
Misogyny, lol. She's actually more trump than people would assume by the looks.
Lets just hope she doesn't run again, because that would spell disaster.
Its the uniqueness of america that is hard for other countries to understand. We're a federation of seperate states with vastly diverse climates and cultures. The only way you keep something like that togeather is for a federation which is different then all the other nation-states that came togeather for non artifical reasons. It would be like if most of south america joined togeather into one country or most of south africa. Not to mention a two party system instead of the chaos of multiple parties.
You overestimate a lot there, and underestimate others.
I do know what the US is, but i also do understand why you have an electoral college. And it has nothing to do with "being fair for everyone". In fact, how many countries are there where a candidate can get the majority of votes and still lose an election? Regardless of how good/bad it was that it happened, the fact that it can happen shows a single thing. Some votes are worth less than others in the US. And that's an inherently flawed system. That's not even getting into gerrymandering.
Sidenote, where's the notion of "multiple parties spell chaos" coming from? That literally couldn't be further from the truth, it's the exact other way around. Two parties spell chaos, and was proven the last 8 years where politics pretty much consisted of "obstruction where ever possible". To the point of an almost governmental shut down.
|
Do you guys even want to imagine what would have happened had she won despite vladimir's interference? Cold war level tension
But we would still be in the paris agreement, so I guess it's worth it!
|
On June 02 2017 11:52 biology]major wrote:
Do you guys even want to imagine what would have happened had she won despite vladimir's interference? Cold war level tension
Nah, the Russia story would have been in the news for only a few days max.
|
On June 02 2017 11:52 biology]major wrote:
Do you guys even want to imagine what would have happened had she won despite vladimir's interference? Cold war level tension
But we would still be in the paris agreement, so I guess it's worth it!
You do realise that a cold war still is on the table, just with another communist country right?
|
On June 02 2017 11:54 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 11:52 biology]major wrote:
Do you guys even want to imagine what would have happened had she won despite vladimir's interference? Cold war level tension Nah, the Russia story would have been in the news for only a few days max.
Does Hillary seem like the person who would just skip over a revenge plot on putin?
|
On June 02 2017 11:44 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 11:42 Sermokala wrote:
Amy klobuchar would sweep the midwestern states that Democrats need to win for the presidency. A Californian or new york candidate doesn't help them electorally. Again, this is so weird. You have to select the candidate based on geography, rather than political alignment. Is it weird that people outside the US are baffled by statements like this?
It's pretty stupid because of our electoral college process.
|
On June 02 2017 11:52 biology]major wrote:
Do you guys even want to imagine what would have happened had she won despite vladimir's interference? Cold war level tension
But we would still be in the paris agreement, so I guess it's worth it!
In some circles Putin's actions would be considered an act of war. That is, your circles in the GWB days  .
|
On June 02 2017 12:05 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 11:52 biology]major wrote:
Do you guys even want to imagine what would have happened had she won despite vladimir's interference? Cold war level tension
But we would still be in the paris agreement, so I guess it's worth it! In some circles Putin's actions would be considered an act of war. That is, your circles in the GWB days .
Not if he helps you win, but point taken
|
On June 02 2017 11:50 m4ini wrote:Misogyny, lol. She's actually more trump than people would assume by the looks. Lets just hope she doesn't run again, because that would spell disaster. Show nested quote +Its the uniqueness of america that is hard for other countries to understand. We're a federation of seperate states with vastly diverse climates and cultures. The only way you keep something like that togeather is for a federation which is different then all the other nation-states that came togeather for non artifical reasons. It would be like if most of south america joined togeather into one country or most of south africa. Not to mention a two party system instead of the chaos of multiple parties.
You overestimate a lot there, and underestimate others. I do know what the US is, but i also do understand why you have an electoral college. And it has nothing to do with "being fair for everyone". In fact, how many countries are there where a candidate can get the majority of votes and still lose an election? Regardless of how good/bad it was that it happened, the fact that it can happen shows a single thing. Some votes are worth less than others in the US. And that's an inherently flawed system. That's not even getting into gerrymandering. Sidenote, where's the notion of "multiple parties spell chaos" coming from? That literally couldn't be further from the truth, it's the exact other way around. Two parties spell chaos, and was proven the last 8 years where politics pretty much consisted of "obstruction where ever possible". To the point of an almost governmental shut down.
Who elects the executive. Do the voters decide who runs the country at the top? How many nations in the world truly elect an executive outside of the united states? Instead with the parlimentary system you get an elected aristocracy that gets to decide amonst themselves who gets to control the nuclear codes. sometimes with groups of people who entirely don't agree politically. And if they don't decide this they then have to have another election. what happens if there is a crisis inbetwen the election and when a government is formed? I know that nations aren't irresponsible enough to not plan for this sort of thing so theres never really that bad taste in the mouth of an illegitimate government but I'd never truely be happy never being allowed to decide who runs the government at the top.
And imagine the case in the UK the northern region of Scotland has a political party that they all vote for and has a large contingency in their parliament. How would you feel knowing that your regions vote doesn't matter because you don't have enough people to decide elections past being the margin party to make the system work?. Granted the Midwest is nothing like Scotland and the US's situation is nothing like the UK's but thats the difference to some degree of the system.
|
On June 02 2017 11:59 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 11:54 a_flayer wrote:On June 02 2017 11:52 biology]major wrote:
Do you guys even want to imagine what would have happened had she won despite vladimir's interference? Cold war level tension Nah, the Russia story would have been in the news for only a few days max. Does Hillary seem like the person who would just skip over a revenge plot on putin?
No, but it would have probably been a covert thing, rather than play out bit by bit in the media in the way that it has now where we get to know about every new person under investigation. So it wouldn't have really raised tensions in such a public way as it has now. Although I suppose the covert action could have elicited a response from Russia which would have been broadcasted in the US media as something unreasonably threatening from them and we would have gone down the same spiral... So you're right, nevermind me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
