- Site Map >
- Community >
- Non-Sims Discussion >
- The Debate Room >
- The US Politics Debate Thread
- Site Map >
- Community >
- Non-Sims Discussion >
- The Debate Room >
- The US Politics Debate Thread
Top Secret Researcher
#201
18th Apr 2015 at 8:07 PM
Posts: 1,811
Quote: Originally posted by frenchyxo22
Well Duh |
As opposed to 2008, where she did not.
Did you have anything to contribute to the discussion?
Advertisement
#202
18th Apr 2015 at 8:42 PM
Posts: 2,024
Hillary's really the least interesting part of the political landscape right now. Everyone's pretty clear that it's going to be Hillary, no one else on the Democrat side of things has a chance in hell of seriously challenging Hillary unless they're the second charismatic coming of Svengali, and if a Democrat wins it will likely be Hillary Clinton.
No, the fun part of the equation is the sack of shitting, hissing, pissing cats that are Republicans. Republicans simultaneously have to race to the bottom of stupid to satisfy their base and also somehow not be so frighteningly fucked up that a handful of moderates will vote for one of them once they're past the primaries. Considering how massively screwed up their last several VP candidates have been, they've also got to vet that. Right now I think the best of a very, very bad bunch is probably Jeb Bush - and if that's not a giant albatross of a last name to hang upon I don't know what is. At least with Hillary Bill's legacy is an economy that was gangbusters and one ill-advised blowjob. Run with Jeb and you're basically giving people carte blanche to run against all the other Bushes right alongside him. Plus, he's Jeb Bush. He's not the enema that Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are, but neither is he going to impress anyone with how amazingly in charge he comes across. Jeb doesn't look like a President, he looks like the guy who does the President's taxes.
No, the fun part of the equation is the sack of shitting, hissing, pissing cats that are Republicans. Republicans simultaneously have to race to the bottom of stupid to satisfy their base and also somehow not be so frighteningly fucked up that a handful of moderates will vote for one of them once they're past the primaries. Considering how massively screwed up their last several VP candidates have been, they've also got to vet that. Right now I think the best of a very, very bad bunch is probably Jeb Bush - and if that's not a giant albatross of a last name to hang upon I don't know what is. At least with Hillary Bill's legacy is an economy that was gangbusters and one ill-advised blowjob. Run with Jeb and you're basically giving people carte blanche to run against all the other Bushes right alongside him. Plus, he's Jeb Bush. He's not the enema that Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are, but neither is he going to impress anyone with how amazingly in charge he comes across. Jeb doesn't look like a President, he looks like the guy who does the President's taxes.
#203
19th Apr 2015 at 12:33 AM
Posts: 187
At least 2/5 of the population always vote Democrat and at least 2/5 of the population vote Republican in the USA. The point of a campaign is to get the less than 1/5 of the population that are swing voters to vote for you. I am one of those voters who looks at multiple issues and never votes along party lines. If I don't know much about a position, I vote against the incumbent, regardless of party affiliation. Those that always vote along party lines without paying attention to the issues sicken me.
--Ocram
Always do your best.
--Ocram
Always do your best.
#204
20th Apr 2015 at 12:33 AM
Posts: 1,242
Quote: Originally posted by Mistermook
No, the fun part of the equation is the sack of shitting, hissing, pissing cats that are Republicans. |
I'm not massively into American politics, coming from some remote backwater on the other side of the Atlantic, but it's always the Republicans that intrigue me and who I end up knowing a lot about. It could be because I have a villain-fascination, and don't actually have to vote for or against them. I remember I was sooooo annoyed that the "bad guys" were the ones to have a female Vice President candidate, after Hillary got knocked out of the race in 2008.
I can't help it, I'm morbidly fascinated with Sarah Palin. For all that she's all kinds of bad and wrong, she's just kind of... cool? In a bad and wrong way, of course. As an egalitarian feminist, I sort of feel obliged to root a bit for women who are successful enough to get to where they're actually capable of (almost) causing some harm.
Quote: Originally posted by Mistermook
Right now I think the best of a very, very bad bunch is probably Jeb Bush |
You think he's better than Rand Paul? (Who I haven't really heard anything outrageous about yet. I did some googling, but I'm too tired for a full investigation.)
#205
21st Apr 2015 at 7:34 PM
Posts: 2,131
Thanks: 16614 in 22 Posts
Quote: Originally posted by AzemOcram
At least 2/5 of the population always vote Democrat and at least 2/5 of the population vote Republican in the USA. The point of a campaign is to get the less than 1/5 of the population that are swing voters to vote for you. I am one of those voters who looks at multiple issues and never votes along party lines. If I don't know much about a position, I vote against the incumbent, regardless of party affiliation. Those that always vote along party lines without paying attention to the issues sicken me. |
If I don't know much about a position, I study it.
Voting party lines makes perfect sense to me. When a party's entire belief system is against mine, it's easy to vote against their members. Republicans are anti-LGBT, anti-abortion, anti-immigration, pro-gun, pro-religion, pro-tax cuts for wealthy and big business. It's a blanket statement, but is true of virtually all Republicans. When everything a party stands for is pro everything I'm against, and anti everything I'm for, what more does one need to know?
Resident wet blanket.
Top Secret Researcher
#206
21st Apr 2015 at 8:32 PM
Posts: 1,811
Quote: Originally posted by AzemOcram
If I don't know much about a position, I vote against the incumbent, regardless of party affiliation. Those that always vote along party lines without paying attention to the issues sicken me. |
How is voting against someone solely because they're in office better than voting solely because of their platform? That's pretty much the same thing.
#207
7th Jul 2015 at 12:35 AM
Posts: 1,968
Thanks: 522 in 3 Posts
I came across this voting helping website: http://www.isidewith.com/
Top 3 is Democrat, Rand Paul the only Republican above 50%. No surprise looking at our politics.
The gorgeous Tina (TS3) and here loving family available for download here.
Quote:
I side with Bernie Sanders on most 2016 Presidential Election issues Candidates you side with... 94%Bernie Sanders Bernie Sanders Democrat on social, healthcare, foreign policy, domestic policy, economic, immigration, and environmental issues. compare answers 91%Hillary Clinton Hillary Clinton Democrat on social, healthcare, domestic policy, education, environmental, economic, and foreign policy issues. compare answers 77%Martin O'Malley Martin O'Malley Democrat on social, healthcare, and environmental issues. compare answers 60%Rand Paul Rand Paul Republican on healthcare and foreign policy issues. compare answers |
Top 3 is Democrat, Rand Paul the only Republican above 50%. No surprise looking at our politics.
The gorgeous Tina (TS3) and here loving family available for download here.
#208
7th Jul 2015 at 3:16 PM
Posts: 2,131
Thanks: 16614 in 22 Posts
Are you in the US, Viktor? For some reason I had thought you live in Norway or Sweden. Don't know where I got that.
Above 50% on Trump? That's embarrassing.
Looks like I'm a slightly better match for Bernie Sanders, but I prefer Hillary Clinton and I feel like she's the stronger candidate. Not only do I like her, but I would like to see this country get its first female president.
Resident wet blanket.
Quote:
Candidates you side with... 96%Bernie Sanders Bernie Sanders Democrat on social, immigration, domestic policy, healthcare, environmental, education, and foreign policy issues. compare answers 94%Hillary Clinton Hillary Clinton Democrat on social, healthcare, domestic policy, immigration, economic, and education issues. compare answers 78%Martin O'Malley Martin O'Malley Democrat on social, healthcare, and immigration issues. compare answers 53%Donald Trump Donald Trump Republican on healthcare, immigration, and foreign policy issues. |
Above 50% on Trump? That's embarrassing.
Looks like I'm a slightly better match for Bernie Sanders, but I prefer Hillary Clinton and I feel like she's the stronger candidate. Not only do I like her, but I would like to see this country get its first female president.
Resident wet blanket.
#209
7th Jul 2015 at 5:35 PM
I'm guessing Clinton will get the Democratic Nomination. Too bad; I'd prefer Sanders.
Clinton voted FOR the DOMA.
Clinton voted to continue carpet bombing, and she voted against removing landmines
(that, btw, were already proven to be killing more non-combatants than combatants).
In my opinion, Clinton is a closet Republican. So the way I see, we're gonna get a Republican president no matter how we vote in 2016.
Clinton voted FOR the DOMA.
Clinton voted to continue carpet bombing, and she voted against removing landmines
(that, btw, were already proven to be killing more non-combatants than combatants).
In my opinion, Clinton is a closet Republican. So the way I see, we're gonna get a Republican president no matter how we vote in 2016.
#210
7th Jul 2015 at 8:06 PM
Last edited by Mistermook : 8th Jul 2015 at 1:10 AM.
Posts: 2,024
Is closet Republican something like a RINO?
The Clintons and Obama are what should win Presidential elections: moderates. The Republicans somehow forgot all that in their rush to shove their heads so far up their own asses they can't see the sun shine for the next thirty years. I might not like every single choice they make, and some of them I disagree with a lot. But it's better than the Republicans where I mostly find I disagree with them on every single thing, and even on the occasion when I agree they're still such assholes about other things that it's hard to treat it like much more than a stopped clock.
What I find amusing about the Republican hopefuls is that out of a truly enormous pack of contenders there's still not a single one of the Republicans I sometimes find myself admiring. You know, because I might still be mad at Colin Powell for his role in the Iraq War I certainly don't blame him for it anymore than I blame Hillary or a hundred other politicians I think it's clear that Cheney lied to so he could fill his pockets and ratchet up the body count. And Condi Rice is too smooth for my tastes, and too much of a "team player" but ffs, making her President would get her the hell away from the college football playoff selection committee and I have a sneaking suspicion that a fully empowered Rice might be off the rails as far as the Republicans were concerned.
The Clintons and Obama are what should win Presidential elections: moderates. The Republicans somehow forgot all that in their rush to shove their heads so far up their own asses they can't see the sun shine for the next thirty years. I might not like every single choice they make, and some of them I disagree with a lot. But it's better than the Republicans where I mostly find I disagree with them on every single thing, and even on the occasion when I agree they're still such assholes about other things that it's hard to treat it like much more than a stopped clock.
What I find amusing about the Republican hopefuls is that out of a truly enormous pack of contenders there's still not a single one of the Republicans I sometimes find myself admiring. You know, because I might still be mad at Colin Powell for his role in the Iraq War I certainly don't blame him for it anymore than I blame Hillary or a hundred other politicians I think it's clear that Cheney lied to so he could fill his pockets and ratchet up the body count. And Condi Rice is too smooth for my tastes, and too much of a "team player" but ffs, making her President would get her the hell away from the college football playoff selection committee and I have a sneaking suspicion that a fully empowered Rice might be off the rails as far as the Republicans were concerned.
#211
7th Jul 2015 at 8:26 PM
Posts: 187
Bernie Sanders and Gary Johnson have more in common with my viewpoint on key issues than any other candidates. Sadly, Clinton is likely to win because of identity politics. I will not vote for any other candidates for president this coming election. I am moving next month so I might just not vote in the upcoming election if the choices are Clinton vs Bush.
Always do your best.
Always do your best.
#212
7th Jul 2015 at 11:54 PM
Posts: 1,968
Thanks: 522 in 3 Posts
Quote: Originally posted by GnatGoSplat
Are you in the US, Viktor? For some reason I had thought you live in Norway or Sweden. Don't know where I got that. Above 50% on Trump? That's embarrassing. Looks like I'm a slightly better match for Bernie Sanders, but I prefer Hillary Clinton and I feel like she's the stronger candidate. Not only do I like her, but I would like to see this country get its first female president. |
Nope, I just love to make these political tests, which I came across on some Dutch football forum. I thought I could place it here, it's the US politics thread and because of the upcoming primaries/elections.for US President.
And you're close, both in location as type of country: I live in the Netherlands.
The gorgeous Tina (TS3) and here loving family available for download here.
#213
8th Jul 2015 at 2:11 AM
@Mistermook, what do you think of candidates who you disagree with on almost all the issues, but who at least seem to hold their positions because they genuinely think that they're the best way to resolve different issues, and not just because it'll make them more appealing to the electorate? I'm thinking at this point of Rand Paul's economic positions- I think they're absolutely the wrong tack to take, but I think HE genuinely thinks that they'll help the country- not just get him elected.
Welcome to the Dark Side...
We lied about having cookies.
We lied about having cookies.
#214
8th Jul 2015 at 7:45 AM
Posts: 2,024
Quote: Originally posted by Zarathustra
@Mistermook, what do you think of candidates who you disagree with on almost all the issues, but who at least seem to hold their positions because they genuinely think that they're the best way to resolve different issues, and not just because it'll make them more appealing to the electorate? I'm thinking at this point of Rand Paul's economic positions- I think they're absolutely the wrong tack to take, but I think HE genuinely thinks that they'll help the country- not just get him elected. |
Eh, I'm not sure how to reply to this the way it's asked. So instead I'm going to spoiler away the huge TLDR wall of text I wrote instead. Hopefully somewhere in there you get the answer you're looking for from me, even if I wasn't sure I was answering it.
If someone's a well-meaning idiot, do I think they should be President? Well, not really - especially if they've got to dump buckets of turds on people politically to get to the job in the first place. I think the classic examples here are George Bush and Reagan... neither one of them was particularly bright, or particularly right about anything. On the lighter side of things Reagan gets praised and demonized depending on which side of the aisle you're on, which I think is pretty fair considering what sort of mixed bag he was in reality. That the man could deliver a speech is undeniable though, and whatever else you're like people are willing to forgive a wide range of sins if they simply like you.
Compare that with Bush, a guy I think it's amazing he manages to dress himself in the morning. I think on his own Bush would have been a pretty mild sort of President, even with 9/11, even if he still managed to lead the country into war in Afghanistan, even if he still put us into Iraq. Even as the "decider" Bush really didn't have the background to be a terrific bastard in the Oval Office, not anymore than Reagan did. No, he relied on folks like Cheney and Ashcroft, people deeply embedded in some pretty terrible political factions for decades. Bush barely understood decimals, he was never good at factions. (sorry, couldn't resist) At the end of Bush's Presidency, when he basically said fuck you all to his whole party and made TARP happen, pushed for immigration reform, etc? Yeah, I think that was probably more "Bush actually being Bush" than we actually got for the rest of his Presidency.
So where does that leave us? I might grit my teeth at some of the things the Reagan administration did, but overall in the short term I think it accomplished a lot of its goals and was a modest success for the country on a lot of levels even if in the long term it was an utter disaster. Bush's Presidency, on the contrast, was an utter disaster start to finish even though I think the problem was less Bush and more his cabinet and the lobby surrounding him. I don't think there's any chance of a 25th hour respite on his legacy either, even guys like Nixon who were demonstrably assholes have more wins and success stories in their historical pockets than Bush will I'm afraid. Seriously, if I were he and concerned with how history remembered me I'd take a cue from Jimmy Carter and get myself ass-deep in orphans and poor people somehow.
Specifically with the Pauls, I really don't care that they're bad with economics. I mean, they're pretty terrible people even without the bad math. I don't think that Republicans, in general, have had a good grasp of economics for a very long time - even when they manage a modest win they always seem to learn the wrong lessons from it and the double down with the worst possible adaptation or interpretation of events. For instance, I think that Bush's tax cut ploy was a come from behind success. As far as I can tell, it really did manage to restore some faith in damaged markets for a short period of time and it probably should not have. But it did and once they got the money shot off of it, they should have pulled out and immediately started reversing course. Similarly, the clever accounting trick for hiding the expense of the wars seemed to work - and it probably kept people from panicking for a long time. But even if you've got a gimmick and it pays off, you'd think any idiot would have a plan for backing away from it all once it stopped working. As far as I can tell though, they never imagined any of their economic policies would ever stop working. And that's the height of idiocy. Democrats who really believe that wages should always go up, the rich should always be taxed a lot, etc. are in a similar bag. As far as economics is concerned, I've never been a big fan of the notion that there's a "right way" and a "wrong way." There's only things that are working and things that are not working. The EU was working, now it's not working so well. Deregulation in the era of Reagan was a quick way to flood the market with cash, but it should have been followed with more measured steps to re-regulate (so that if you needed to deregulate and glut the market again, you could). Eventually there will come a time in the US's future when we're flush with money and growth, and that's the time if some asshole like Ted Cruz wants to insist we pay down the national debt maybe we should. We could even shrink the public sector some maybe then, since everyone in the country will be being offered like three jobs that pay better, right? Until then though, it's stupid and it's even more stupid to imagine we shouldn't have any debt whatsoever since that would mean utter chaos in the currency market globally - there are countries out there that are only solvent and not murdering everyone across their borders because they've got enough money invested in our money that they can pretend to be real places.
Anyways, a very large number of the Republican hopefuls are just nuts or morons. Trump, Cruz, Paul, Carson, Rubio, Fiorina, Graham, Huckabee, Jindal, Perry, Santorum, and Walker... they're all really, really terrible candidates for various reasons even if some of them aren't terrible at some other job. For instance, Ben Carson is apparently a pretty great neurosurgeon (as opposed to Paul) even though he's some sort of super-Christian "lock up all the homosexuals and idolaters" crazy guy as a politician. If he wanted to saw open my skull and do something to my brain, I'd hear him out; but even just looking over his headlines makes me facepalm his notion as a candidate. Even a few decades ago when a lot more people were self-identifying as Christian, Ben Carson kind of sticks out as one of those "electing this guy is how we end up joining Germany for getting into the whole 'fucked up shit our country did because a crazy guy was in charge' racket" guys. And Trump's a racist bastard with unelectable hair even, but whatever possessed Carly Fiorina to imagine that she could reform her image as "worst tech CEO ever" by asking people to let her take that set of skills into the White House? At least Trump sometimes makes money, Fiorina's whole public persona is "the lady that has to fire everyone because she's terrible at her job." All of the Republican governors and former governors have similar problems - they just haven't done a great job and even the best showing of the lot is Perry and...well, Perry's Perry. I actually think Perry's got a great look for a President, then I remember he's from Texas and he also opens his mouth. And Cruz and Rubio seem to exist to make sure that the very last potential Hispanic voters not utterly put off by Trump, might be wooed by these two pair of dumbasses and maybe think it would be nicer to drink a gallon of horse urine instead of subject anyone to four years of the two alternating between patronizing and vilifying their families. In any case, in an ideal world we could probably take every single one of these candidates out behind the White House and quietly drown them or something just to reduce the signal to noise ratio.
That really just leaves Bush, Christie, Kasich, and Pataki I think. Former NY governor Pataki's a non-starter because of New York, and also because he's likely corrupt as hell. I think he's probably fairly moderate though, I can't imagine how he managed several terms in NY without being able to move to the middle of the road if need be. Kasich might be an interesting spoiler for Bush and Christie, Ohio is an important state and I guess he's a classic case of something what you're probably imagining - he's apparently used the Tea Party folks to get elected in the past but threw them away afterwards like a bunch of hookers stinking up the trunk. I don't know enough about him beyond that - even with the crazy parts of Ohio though, it's a swing state and goes both ways. That means he's probably fairly moderate. Florida's another swing, and that's Bush. I know there's a lot of interest in Bush, but I can't help but think he's going to bomb when the time comes to actually talk. For instance, I think Perry's a pretty terrifying choice for school hall monitor, but IMO he is ten times the public speaker Bush is. And then there's the whole "third string" thing - we've gone from a bona fide war hero Bush, to a failed businessman Bush, and now it's...the Bush that wasn't good enough to promote over the failed businessman Bush the first time? Yikes. And I feel for Christie, but I'm afraid he's got to get himself out there more. Lots of people realize New Jersey isn't a lot like it is in the movies, but even forcing myself to think about that I'm afraid that somehow whenever I think of him I immediate conjure scenes from Jersey Girl and Garden State. Unfair.
Compare that with Bush, a guy I think it's amazing he manages to dress himself in the morning. I think on his own Bush would have been a pretty mild sort of President, even with 9/11, even if he still managed to lead the country into war in Afghanistan, even if he still put us into Iraq. Even as the "decider" Bush really didn't have the background to be a terrific bastard in the Oval Office, not anymore than Reagan did. No, he relied on folks like Cheney and Ashcroft, people deeply embedded in some pretty terrible political factions for decades. Bush barely understood decimals, he was never good at factions. (sorry, couldn't resist) At the end of Bush's Presidency, when he basically said fuck you all to his whole party and made TARP happen, pushed for immigration reform, etc? Yeah, I think that was probably more "Bush actually being Bush" than we actually got for the rest of his Presidency.
So where does that leave us? I might grit my teeth at some of the things the Reagan administration did, but overall in the short term I think it accomplished a lot of its goals and was a modest success for the country on a lot of levels even if in the long term it was an utter disaster. Bush's Presidency, on the contrast, was an utter disaster start to finish even though I think the problem was less Bush and more his cabinet and the lobby surrounding him. I don't think there's any chance of a 25th hour respite on his legacy either, even guys like Nixon who were demonstrably assholes have more wins and success stories in their historical pockets than Bush will I'm afraid. Seriously, if I were he and concerned with how history remembered me I'd take a cue from Jimmy Carter and get myself ass-deep in orphans and poor people somehow.
Specifically with the Pauls, I really don't care that they're bad with economics. I mean, they're pretty terrible people even without the bad math. I don't think that Republicans, in general, have had a good grasp of economics for a very long time - even when they manage a modest win they always seem to learn the wrong lessons from it and the double down with the worst possible adaptation or interpretation of events. For instance, I think that Bush's tax cut ploy was a come from behind success. As far as I can tell, it really did manage to restore some faith in damaged markets for a short period of time and it probably should not have. But it did and once they got the money shot off of it, they should have pulled out and immediately started reversing course. Similarly, the clever accounting trick for hiding the expense of the wars seemed to work - and it probably kept people from panicking for a long time. But even if you've got a gimmick and it pays off, you'd think any idiot would have a plan for backing away from it all once it stopped working. As far as I can tell though, they never imagined any of their economic policies would ever stop working. And that's the height of idiocy. Democrats who really believe that wages should always go up, the rich should always be taxed a lot, etc. are in a similar bag. As far as economics is concerned, I've never been a big fan of the notion that there's a "right way" and a "wrong way." There's only things that are working and things that are not working. The EU was working, now it's not working so well. Deregulation in the era of Reagan was a quick way to flood the market with cash, but it should have been followed with more measured steps to re-regulate (so that if you needed to deregulate and glut the market again, you could). Eventually there will come a time in the US's future when we're flush with money and growth, and that's the time if some asshole like Ted Cruz wants to insist we pay down the national debt maybe we should. We could even shrink the public sector some maybe then, since everyone in the country will be being offered like three jobs that pay better, right? Until then though, it's stupid and it's even more stupid to imagine we shouldn't have any debt whatsoever since that would mean utter chaos in the currency market globally - there are countries out there that are only solvent and not murdering everyone across their borders because they've got enough money invested in our money that they can pretend to be real places.
Anyways, a very large number of the Republican hopefuls are just nuts or morons. Trump, Cruz, Paul, Carson, Rubio, Fiorina, Graham, Huckabee, Jindal, Perry, Santorum, and Walker... they're all really, really terrible candidates for various reasons even if some of them aren't terrible at some other job. For instance, Ben Carson is apparently a pretty great neurosurgeon (as opposed to Paul) even though he's some sort of super-Christian "lock up all the homosexuals and idolaters" crazy guy as a politician. If he wanted to saw open my skull and do something to my brain, I'd hear him out; but even just looking over his headlines makes me facepalm his notion as a candidate. Even a few decades ago when a lot more people were self-identifying as Christian, Ben Carson kind of sticks out as one of those "electing this guy is how we end up joining Germany for getting into the whole 'fucked up shit our country did because a crazy guy was in charge' racket" guys. And Trump's a racist bastard with unelectable hair even, but whatever possessed Carly Fiorina to imagine that she could reform her image as "worst tech CEO ever" by asking people to let her take that set of skills into the White House? At least Trump sometimes makes money, Fiorina's whole public persona is "the lady that has to fire everyone because she's terrible at her job." All of the Republican governors and former governors have similar problems - they just haven't done a great job and even the best showing of the lot is Perry and...well, Perry's Perry. I actually think Perry's got a great look for a President, then I remember he's from Texas and he also opens his mouth. And Cruz and Rubio seem to exist to make sure that the very last potential Hispanic voters not utterly put off by Trump, might be wooed by these two pair of dumbasses and maybe think it would be nicer to drink a gallon of horse urine instead of subject anyone to four years of the two alternating between patronizing and vilifying their families. In any case, in an ideal world we could probably take every single one of these candidates out behind the White House and quietly drown them or something just to reduce the signal to noise ratio.
That really just leaves Bush, Christie, Kasich, and Pataki I think. Former NY governor Pataki's a non-starter because of New York, and also because he's likely corrupt as hell. I think he's probably fairly moderate though, I can't imagine how he managed several terms in NY without being able to move to the middle of the road if need be. Kasich might be an interesting spoiler for Bush and Christie, Ohio is an important state and I guess he's a classic case of something what you're probably imagining - he's apparently used the Tea Party folks to get elected in the past but threw them away afterwards like a bunch of hookers stinking up the trunk. I don't know enough about him beyond that - even with the crazy parts of Ohio though, it's a swing state and goes both ways. That means he's probably fairly moderate. Florida's another swing, and that's Bush. I know there's a lot of interest in Bush, but I can't help but think he's going to bomb when the time comes to actually talk. For instance, I think Perry's a pretty terrifying choice for school hall monitor, but IMO he is ten times the public speaker Bush is. And then there's the whole "third string" thing - we've gone from a bona fide war hero Bush, to a failed businessman Bush, and now it's...the Bush that wasn't good enough to promote over the failed businessman Bush the first time? Yikes. And I feel for Christie, but I'm afraid he's got to get himself out there more. Lots of people realize New Jersey isn't a lot like it is in the movies, but even forcing myself to think about that I'm afraid that somehow whenever I think of him I immediate conjure scenes from Jersey Girl and Garden State. Unfair.
Test Subject
#215
4th Sep 2015 at 7:27 PM
Posts: 21
LETS JUST COMPROMISE AND LET THEM TALK IT OUT OVER SOME STARBUCKS Quote by: My 4 year old cousin
#216
5th Sep 2015 at 12:26 PM
Posts: 2,024
Compromise really isn't on anyone's agenda in the Republican primaries except possibly Kasich and Christie. I'd put Pataki in there, but he's apparently disappeared entirely already. You'll note that neither is a frontrunner. Compromise isn't a particularly good selling point for the Republican primaries, because the Republican primaries are dominated by people who refer to people who disagree with them in casual conversation as "libtards," think that anyone who's not white and/or English speaking should be "sent back to Africa," think that it's perfectly fine to discriminate against "queers" and the like.
Seriously, I do not actually think that the entirety of the Republican party is actually dominated by these voices, but it's very, very clear that these voices have a disproportionate responsibility for defining which candidates actually get put on the roster. Presumably this is because the majority of the other Republicans are the solid remnants of the "embattled upper middle class" - the folks with modest libertarian values that imagine that Democratic support for things like increased minimum wages and opposition to wealth inequality means taking something from them or somehow increasing what they see as an "unfair advantage" as opposed to a resolution to correct disadvantages. I mean, I've met these people. Some of them are pretty good friends of mine. They're the people who find the whole Trump thing embarrassing, but can't figure out how to correct it or even how it's happening.
Seriously, I do not actually think that the entirety of the Republican party is actually dominated by these voices, but it's very, very clear that these voices have a disproportionate responsibility for defining which candidates actually get put on the roster. Presumably this is because the majority of the other Republicans are the solid remnants of the "embattled upper middle class" - the folks with modest libertarian values that imagine that Democratic support for things like increased minimum wages and opposition to wealth inequality means taking something from them or somehow increasing what they see as an "unfair advantage" as opposed to a resolution to correct disadvantages. I mean, I've met these people. Some of them are pretty good friends of mine. They're the people who find the whole Trump thing embarrassing, but can't figure out how to correct it or even how it's happening.
#217
5th Sep 2015 at 6:11 PM
Posts: 1,968
Thanks: 522 in 3 Posts
Quote: Originally posted by Mistermook
think that anyone who's not white and/or English speaking should be "sent back to Africa," |
Which is quite funny, because that white and/or English speaking person doesn't belong there either, but have to be ''sent back to Europe'' with that logic.
The gorgeous Tina (TS3) and here loving family available for download here.
#218
7th Sep 2015 at 2:13 PM
Posts: 3,334
Thanks: 55 in 1 Posts
Quote: Originally posted by Viktor86
Which is quite funny, because that white and/or English speaking person doesn't belong there either, but have to be ''sent back to Europe'' with that logic. |
The ability to reason is something these people lack. Why develop your brain's logical capabilities when it just gets in the way? When Donald Trump says that Mexico is sending criminals to the US, they want to believe it's true, so that makes it true even in the face of real evidence to the contrary.
#219
8th Sep 2015 at 4:31 AM
Posts: 1,968
Thanks: 522 in 3 Posts
I know, we have this kind of people, media and politicians, too. Their personal view on things like criminality, immigration and in our case islam are on the opposite of the facts. But they rather complain and listen to yelling xenofobic populists than too reason, because of their lack of brains.
The gorgeous Tina (TS3) and here loving family available for download here.
The gorgeous Tina (TS3) and here loving family available for download here.
#220
8th Sep 2015 at 12:25 PM
Posts: 2,024
That's why they're reactionaries. They're not driven by any incentives except returning the world to a presumed previous state that possibly never existed. Progress isn't kind to some groups, especially when they're basing their status quo on things that only exist because of privilege, racism, and/or outdated economies. Honestly? Sometimes it's a little sad, because they're not even going against actual politics or policy, but simple demographics. Why Republicans are choosing to pick a fight with the entire hispanic and latino world is just feckless - there's no one in the country who by any means outside of genocide who could possibly change the demographic reality of hispanics and latinos becoming a more dominant political voice in the US in a few years. No means whatsoever. It's going to happen, and since it's going to happen, since you can literally perform statistical analysis on the birth figures and census data, you can look straight at hard numbers and see the conservatives are going to end up on the wrong side of history in this...and yet they persist. Even if we did manage to send back every illegal immigrant, it would still be a fact. It's quixotic nonsense politics.
Lab Assistant
#221
12th Jun 2018 at 3:59 PM
Posts: 90
muwahahaha with the power with necromancy this forum is now alive with tis post but tbh this is a sticky so idc
Anyway I should say something about US polotics is to control guns sorry if I have triggered US people who think the right bear arms is good. All I am saying is that It should be regulated first before you stress about other things though because Uh how many shooting has there been uhmm too many so that is one thing that needs to change is regulation on how you get guns you need to have background checks so that people with a history of violence and crime can't get a gun to protect others from being victims of this criminals next plan.. but this is just my opininon so don't get all ragey on me because I said this so if you don't like what I said don't try and shut my opinion down because I'ts offensive or hurting your feelins but thats going to far anyway...
ASWELL this thread should be locked because its you know uh dead
Sometimes I feel like one of the unborn Ottomas twins.
Anyway I should say something about US polotics is to control guns sorry if I have triggered US people who think the right bear arms is good. All I am saying is that It should be regulated first before you stress about other things though because Uh how many shooting has there been uhmm too many so that is one thing that needs to change is regulation on how you get guns you need to have background checks so that people with a history of violence and crime can't get a gun to protect others from being victims of this criminals next plan.. but this is just my opininon so don't get all ragey on me because I said this so if you don't like what I said don't try and shut my opinion down because I'ts offensive or hurting your feelins but thats going to far anyway...
ASWELL this thread should be locked because its you know uh dead
Sometimes I feel like one of the unborn Ottomas twins.
#222
12th Jun 2018 at 8:14 PM
Posts: 12,925
Thanks: 3 in 1 Posts
The "right to bear arms" thing in the US is BS. Crimes and tragic events linked to guns seem like a daily event there. School shootings, robberies, people gunning people down for "nothing", suicides, and so forth. Countries with the most guns and easier access to guns have been shown to have the most gun-related crimes, and the US tops quite a lot of the statistics.
Where I live, the gun restrictions are quite strict, and most privately owned guns are for hunting and competitions, but to even own one you need a permit from the police and a good reason to own a gun ("to protect myself" isn't one of them), and you can't just walk around with a concealed weapon and expect to keep it if you get caught by the police, at least not if you don't have an exceptionally good reason for doing so. Anyone can't sell guns (you need a permit for that, too), and you're not allowed to re-sell guns. If the police should deem you unfit to own guns, they can take away the permit and your guns. Gun-related crime and gun-related murders aren't common here, and except for some more crime ridden areas in a few of the largest cities, you can walk around feeling reasonably safe (there's other types of crimes, though - but those aren't too common either). There's also a lot more respect for guns, the dangers of owning one, and for using it safely, and there's no "right to carry a gun" here. Even the police don't usually carry guns on them (they have guns, but don't use them unless they absolutely need to). We've got around 15 gun-related deaths on average each year, practically no school shootings or similar incidents, and while we had a larger mass shooting some years ago, I think that's been the only one this decade. Those times where we do have larger gun-related incidents, the weapon laws tend to get more restricted.
The pattern with stricter gun laws and fewer gun-related deaths is seen quite a lot of places around the world.
The thing about a gun is that there's just "one" reason they exist. They're all made for killing, pretending to kill, or at best for hurting (which can lead to death). Most other weapons have other reasons for existing, like knives or baseball bats. Guns may not kill on their own (unless you're very unlucky) - but if you own a gun, you own a weapon meant for killing. There's no getting around it. You can say it's for "protecting yourself", and you may not intend to kill with it, but that doesn't change much.
Where I live, the gun restrictions are quite strict, and most privately owned guns are for hunting and competitions, but to even own one you need a permit from the police and a good reason to own a gun ("to protect myself" isn't one of them), and you can't just walk around with a concealed weapon and expect to keep it if you get caught by the police, at least not if you don't have an exceptionally good reason for doing so. Anyone can't sell guns (you need a permit for that, too), and you're not allowed to re-sell guns. If the police should deem you unfit to own guns, they can take away the permit and your guns. Gun-related crime and gun-related murders aren't common here, and except for some more crime ridden areas in a few of the largest cities, you can walk around feeling reasonably safe (there's other types of crimes, though - but those aren't too common either). There's also a lot more respect for guns, the dangers of owning one, and for using it safely, and there's no "right to carry a gun" here. Even the police don't usually carry guns on them (they have guns, but don't use them unless they absolutely need to). We've got around 15 gun-related deaths on average each year, practically no school shootings or similar incidents, and while we had a larger mass shooting some years ago, I think that's been the only one this decade. Those times where we do have larger gun-related incidents, the weapon laws tend to get more restricted.
The pattern with stricter gun laws and fewer gun-related deaths is seen quite a lot of places around the world.
The thing about a gun is that there's just "one" reason they exist. They're all made for killing, pretending to kill, or at best for hurting (which can lead to death). Most other weapons have other reasons for existing, like knives or baseball bats. Guns may not kill on their own (unless you're very unlucky) - but if you own a gun, you own a weapon meant for killing. There's no getting around it. You can say it's for "protecting yourself", and you may not intend to kill with it, but that doesn't change much.
My site - TS2 baby stuff - ToU
My stories: Anna's diary - Memories are forever - Little Fire Burning
My stories: Anna's diary - Memories are forever - Little Fire Burning
Test Subject
#223
27th Dec 2018 at 7:06 PM
Posts: 1
I strongly believe in the second amendment. I believe that the American people have the right to protect themselves, especially in situations where guns are used for hunting, competitions, and certainly for the reason of protecting one's self and family. I think it is very important to take a step back and realize that guns themselves are objects. Are they objects used to hurt people? in many cases, yes. Yet a gun does not have a mind of its own, but the person who uses that gun certainly does. Now, this is where it dwindles down to what the persons' intention is. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm certainly for more strict regulations for who can own a gun. But let's also take a look at Chicago, a city that has strict gun laws, and according to Chicago Tribute, there were over 1,400 people shot in the city. So how much do those laws really contribute and prevent people from getting their hands on guns? It also goes to show, if a certain someone really wants to get their hands on a firearm, they'll find a way to get it somehow, even with the threshold of laws that surround the weapons.
Instructor
#224
9th Aug 2019 at 9:57 PM
Posts: 519
Thing is, cities and states don't have customs at the border to stop someone from going to a state with lax gun laws and bringing what they want back to a state/city with strict gun laws, so by state it doesn't do much good, by city even less so. There needs to be more sane gun laws - at least no semi-autos allowed for civilians.
#225
9th Aug 2019 at 10:51 PM
Last edited by simmer22 : 9th Aug 2019 at 11:07 PM.
Posts: 12,925
Thanks: 3 in 1 Posts
An unloaded gun may not be able to hurt someone (there have been cases where loaded guns went off by accident for various reasons like heat or not securing it properly, so while it may be more or less true in theory it's not entirely true in practice), but giving the wrong hands access to guns hurt people. Even an unloaded gun can hurt you pretty bad if someone hits you over the head with it. An atomic bomb technically isn't able to hurt anyone unless it's set of, either - but you wouldn't want other people to keep those in their house as a safety measure against burglars...
The problem is, if "anyone" can get a gun easily, you end up with a bad circle of "X may have gun so I need a gun to protect myself", and soon enough you can barely walk down the street for fear that someone has a gun and sooner or later is going to shoot you either on purpose or by accident. The more guns there are in circulation, the bigger the risk for them getting into the wrong hands of someone who actually wants to do harm against someone else. There are cases where kids got hold of guns and ended up accidentally harming themselves or someone else, which should not be allowed to happen. I get it that people may want rifles for hunting, but other than being a tool for catching food there really isn't a good excuse for owning a gun spesifically meant to hurt people. If fewer people have access to guns, the danger of being shot tends to get reduced. I think it may also be a culture issue, where it becomes "normal" to own a gun because of fear.
Coming from a country with restrictive gun laws, and from a culture where you find the occasional rifle for hunting, paintball rifles, and maybe a few have guns for target shooting and such (it's not particularly common to have other kind of guns), I feel I most of the time can walk safely in the streets or be safe in my own house without being afraid of whether someone is going to wave a gun in my face.
The problem is, if "anyone" can get a gun easily, you end up with a bad circle of "X may have gun so I need a gun to protect myself", and soon enough you can barely walk down the street for fear that someone has a gun and sooner or later is going to shoot you either on purpose or by accident. The more guns there are in circulation, the bigger the risk for them getting into the wrong hands of someone who actually wants to do harm against someone else. There are cases where kids got hold of guns and ended up accidentally harming themselves or someone else, which should not be allowed to happen. I get it that people may want rifles for hunting, but other than being a tool for catching food there really isn't a good excuse for owning a gun spesifically meant to hurt people. If fewer people have access to guns, the danger of being shot tends to get reduced. I think it may also be a culture issue, where it becomes "normal" to own a gun because of fear.
Coming from a country with restrictive gun laws, and from a culture where you find the occasional rifle for hunting, paintball rifles, and maybe a few have guns for target shooting and such (it's not particularly common to have other kind of guns), I feel I most of the time can walk safely in the streets or be safe in my own house without being afraid of whether someone is going to wave a gun in my face.
My site - TS2 baby stuff - ToU
My stories: Anna's diary - Memories are forever - Little Fire Burning
My stories: Anna's diary - Memories are forever - Little Fire Burning
Who Posted
|