EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 9853
| 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. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On February 06 2018 02:52 IyMoon wrote: In all fairness, I think a lot of people vote for the lying sack of shit over the Nazi True, but in order to do that they need to know that the person is a Nazi and the person is a lying sack of shit. So you need to run an actual campaign in the dirt against the Nazi who has been prepping for a campaign in the district for 5 years. | ||
|
brian
United States9620 Posts
On February 06 2018 02:50 TheTenthDoc wrote: First, a few hundred bucks of flyers is unlikely to beat out a candidate who is going to be actively campaigning (even if he is a Nazi). There are primary debates and other events that you are going to be pretty much forced to attend if you want to actually stop him from winning the primary. Second, I'm not sure if it's legal to run for a position under false pretenses (and if you aren't quitting your job and preparing to move to the capital, you're running under false pretenses). If it becomes a real campaign, he can (rightly) point out that you're a lying sack of shit who isn't actually interested in being a U.S. representative. Yup. The RNC did exactly this with Roy Moore. The state Republican Party is under no obligation to share information with him just because his name is on the ballot with an R next to it. i’m not swayed. i think a campaign of ‘I’m not a nazi’ is a winning strategy. if a few public forums are the cost i’d pay it happily. if we’re in a world where this doesn’t beat out a Nazi, this only further reinforces my position. and you can’t play the 0% chance of winning card AND false pretenses card. but so be it. we will just disagree. On February 06 2018 02:53 TheTenthDoc wrote: True, but in order to do that they need to know that the person is a Nazi and the person is a lying sack of shit. So you need to run an actual campaign in the dirt against the Nazi who has been prepping for a campaign in the district for 5 years. i agree, and for an organization as large as the RNC (or DNC should the positions be switched) find this a worthwhile endeavor just for the sake of it. i’m not a fan of giving a voice to white supremacy. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
If "the RNC" or "the DNC" could run AIs or a piece of paper called "not a Nazi" it would be a different story. But they can't, there are real human costs involved, and they're the kind of costs you can't just make go away with money. | ||
|
brian
United States9620 Posts
| ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
Also another reason why it's not 0 problem, remember when the GOP distanced themselves heavily from Roy Moore, but then when he started coming back in the polls that distancing and denouncement turned into silence, a "wait and see", and a "leave it to the voters" attitude? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On February 06 2018 03:03 TheTenthDoc wrote: I guess I just don't think it's reprehensible that nobody in the district signed up to be a sacrificial lamb because I wouldn't put my life on hold for the DNC or Democrats in my state to stop someone who's not going to win. If "the RNC" or "the DNC" could run AIs or a piece of paper called "not a Nazi" it would be a different story. But they can't, there are real human costs involved, and they're the kind of costs you can't just make go away with money. mostly people are disagreeing abotu the extent to which it requires you to put your life on hold. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 06 2018 03:09 Logo wrote: I also don't think anyone said reprehensible, or at least I didn't, so it's kind of projecting on just how bad of a thing I think it is. Which I'm not really sure where I'd rate it. It's not 0 and it's not Roy Moore, but somewhere in between. Also another reason why it's not 0 problem, remember when the GOP distanced themselves heavily from Roy Moore, but then when he started coming back in the polls that distancing and denouncement turned into silence, a "wait and see", and a "leave it to the voters" attitude? I think this is there a lot of criticism comes from. Roy Moore was a true trash human and it was becoming clear the GOP leadership's plan was to tolerate him if they could get one more vote in the senate. People just don't trust the party leadership to have a spin. They get real bent out of shape about: overturning the will of the people. Personally, I have no problem with Congress sending an elected official packing and telling that state "Send us someone who isn't human garbage, thanks." | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On February 06 2018 03:14 Plansix wrote: I think this is there a lot of criticism comes from. Roy Moore was a true trash human and it was becoming clear the GOP leadership's plan was to tolerate him if they could get one more vote in the senate. People just don't trust the party leadership to have a spin. They get real bent out of shape about: overturning the will of the people. Personally, I have no problem with Congress sending an elected official packing and telling that state "Send us someone who isn't human garbage, thanks." Yeah, that's the thing right? The GOP has already failed twice recently at distancing themselves from unacceptable behavior (Roy Moore and Greg Gianforte) so it's not like they have goodwill or integrity to have their lack of support be interpreted as anything but an acknowledgement that the candidate has no chance to win. Here was a chance to right a ship by saying here's something we don't accept and here's how we're combating it in our candidates, but they... well didn't. | ||
|
Howie_Dewitt
United States1416 Posts
On February 06 2018 03:14 Plansix wrote: I think this is there a lot of criticism comes from. Roy Moore was a true trash human and it was becoming clear the GOP leadership's plan was to tolerate him if they could get one more vote in the senate. People just don't trust the party leadership to have a spin. They get real bent out of shape about: overturning the will of the people. Personally, I have no problem with Congress sending an elected official packing and telling that state "Send us someone who isn't human garbage, thanks." I would only be comfortable with that if the required percentage of votes to boot someone like that was far more than the 51 or 60 needed now for most things in the Senate. If it wasn't bipartisan, then it could be abused to kick out people who were more radical on the minority and force the minority to run more moderate candidates who could vote against the party, or even someone from the majority party. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
Plus, if you sham-run and lose you're permanently "that person who couldn't even win against a Nazi because he was lying the whole time and didn't try hard enough." | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 06 2018 03:19 Howie_Dewitt wrote: I would only be comfortable with that if the required percentage of votes to boot someone like that was far more than the 51 or 60 needed now for most things in the Senate. If it wasn't bipartisan, then it could be abused to kick out people who were more radical on the minority and force the minority to run more moderate candidates who could vote against the party, or even someone from the majority party. It is totally possible to remove someone from congress. They have not done it in a very long time, I believe since the civil war. But when it comes to Nazis, people who sexually assault minors or former sheriffs that ran detention centers that could be confused with consecration camps, I think congress should show some leadership and backbone. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On February 06 2018 03:19 Howie_Dewitt wrote: I would only be comfortable with that if the required percentage of votes to boot someone like that was far more than the 51 or 60 needed now for most things in the Senate. If it wasn't bipartisan, then it could be abused to kick out people who were more radical on the minority and force the minority to run more moderate candidates who could vote against the party, or even someone from the majority party. it requires 2/3 to expel a member. article 1 section 5 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member. | ||
|
brian
United States9620 Posts
On February 06 2018 03:24 TheTenthDoc wrote: I guess I've just seen people run for barely-contested local schoolboard seats and basically have to write off those months of their life. And they were actually running, rather than sham-running against a Nazi. So this whole "oh it's so easy to launch a primary campaign for a national office with some fliers" thing just flat-out contradicts my experience. I could be placing too much value on personal anecdotes though, I admit. Plus, if you sham-run and lose you're permanently "that person who couldn't even win against a Nazi because he was lying the whole time and didn't try hard enough." i don’t intent to discredit real races and real campaigns. i’ve seen them. they’re hard. but this isn’t that. and again, if this is a country where a nazi beats anyone with a pulse that’s only more cause to proceed with putting forth a candidate. fortunately i don’t think we’re there yet. I understand what you mean, though. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The U.S. military’s latest test of its Standard Missile 3 Block IIA ballistic missile interceptor has reportedly failed. So far, it’s unclear what happened, and the weapon is still in development, but it does come amid months of escalating tensions between the United States and North Korea and reports that authorities in Pyongyang are planning a parade with hundreds of ballistic missiles, likely in no small part to dissuade the U.S. government from considering a limited "bloody nose" strike. CNN was first to report the apparent failure on Jan. 31, 2018. The test launch would be the fifth for the weapon, commonly referred to as the SM-3 Block IIA, and the third in which it attempted to actually intercept another missile. The last such experiment, which occurred in June 2017, also failed, but this was because a U.S. Navy sailor accidentally triggered the missile’s self-destruct function. Another SM-3 Block IIA had successfully knocked down a target for the first time four months earlier. The U.S. military plans to eventually add the weapons to the Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and install them at fixed Aegis Ashore sites in Europe. Japan is a major partner in the program and plans to equip its own warships with the weapon and establish land-based Aegis Ashore facilities within its territory. www.thedrive.com | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
Edit: I'm actually curious who the "what if a test failed" person was, because that seems like an education moment more than anything else. Like the old duck-and-cover routines during the cold war. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
| ||
