Home | Download | Discussion | Help | Site Map | New Posts | Sign in

Latest Site News

Nysha's New Creators for November - posted on 1st Dec 2017 at 10:00 AM
Replies: 219 (Who?), Viewed: 102027 times.
Page 9 of 9
Top Secret Researcher
#201 Old 18th Apr 2015 at 9:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by frenchyxo22
Well Duh


As opposed to 2008, where she did not.

Did you have anything to contribute to the discussion?
Theorist
#202 Old 18th Apr 2015 at 9:42 PM
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.
Lab Assistant
#203 Old 19th Apr 2015 at 1:33 AM
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.
Scholar
#204 Old 20th Apr 2015 at 1:33 AM
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.)
Theorist
#205 Old 21st Apr 2015 at 8:34 PM
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 Old 21st Apr 2015 at 9:32 PM
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.
Theorist
#207 Old 7th Jul 2015 at 1:35 AM
I came across this voting helping website: http://www.isidewith.com/

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.
Theorist
#208 Old 7th Jul 2015 at 4:16 PM
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.

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.
Scholar
#209 Old 7th Jul 2015 at 6:35 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.
Theorist
#210 Old 7th Jul 2015 at 9:06 PM Last edited by Mistermook : 8th Jul 2015 at 2:10 AM.
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.
Lab Assistant
#211 Old 7th Jul 2015 at 9:26 PM
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.
Theorist
#212 Old 8th Jul 2015 at 12:54 AM
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.
Alchemist
#213 Old 8th Jul 2015 at 3:11 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.
Theorist
#214 Old 8th Jul 2015 at 8:45 AM
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.

Test Subject
#215 Old 4th Sep 2015 at 8:27 PM
LETS JUST COMPROMISE AND LET THEM TALK IT OUT OVER SOME STARBUCKS Quote by: My 4 year old cousin
Theorist
#216 Old 5th Sep 2015 at 1:26 PM
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.
Theorist
#217 Old 5th Sep 2015 at 7:11 PM
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.
Mad Poster
#218 Old 7th Sep 2015 at 3:13 PM
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.
Theorist
#219 Old 8th Sep 2015 at 5:31 AM
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.
Theorist
#220 Old 8th Sep 2015 at 1:25 PM
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.
Spice Pony
DELETED POST
6th Dec 2015 at 7:18 PM
This message has been deleted by ewenk7. Reason: too stressed out to discuss politics
Page 9 of 9
Back to top