Yeah but in the US, we have one party that's infinitely better than the other so fortunately that isn't our situation.
GasBandit
Staff member
There's something to be said for overt fascism, instead of "for your own good" fascism with a happyface emoji.
#Don'tBlameMeIVotedForGary
Well, if he's as successful as the Marijuana Party, soon all y'all will get to wear a boot on your head and you'll get your rent lowered.
I'm pulling for ya!
That depends on what they can pass until then, and visible it is.
The Dems might not be as bad, but they still get corporate money, and, even if they reverse some things, they might leave some (see: all the Bush era stuff that Obama continued nd it's now not even under debate any more).
I mean, it's how i'd do it if i was an evil mastermind paying off everyone. Get one side to be completely off the rails, and the other to just be in my favour at sane levels of corruption.
GasBandit
Staff member
Ok, deleted mine too then.
Could we stop calling any authoritarian position "fascism"? Neither Stalin nor Hitler would approve of you doing that.
You mean you threw away your vote, because FPTP...
Y'all need to change that shit at some point, or it's all useless. R's will get into office again once people get demotivated by the fact that the D's are also beholden to special interests, just not as insanely as R's. And even if they weren't, having only 2 parties that count means all the political spectrum and stances have to be absorbed into those 2 parties, so you're always forced to vote for people who might not share your actual political opinions, but are in the same party with people that do.[DOUBLEPOST=1517950445,1517950351][/DOUBLEPOST]
WHAT ARE YOU TOO HIDING?!
Someone write a memo about it, quick...
GasBandit
Staff member
I'm aware my vote was merely a symbolic protest vote, but hey, if EVERYBODY did it, it wouldn't be. I voted my conscience. Everybody else voted their bowels.
That said, I entirely agree, we need instant runoff elections. We've needed em for decades. But we're not going to get them without something seriously unpleasant happening first to dislodge the entrenched federal power structure as it exists.
Until you get rid of FPTP, it would only make a difference once or twice, and then you'd simply be back to 2 parties, with just one being a new party, see: what happened every time in US history.
I never read their posts, so I guess that makes me the most qualified to write that memo.
It's a shame I'm too lazy to bother going to all the trouble mocking up a fake memo, but the gist of their posts was blotsfan fawning over Tom Brady's awesomeness while Gas lusted after his blonde wife, Giselle.
I am still processing this, but I thought it was a startling op-ed about calling the GOP as a whole to task to do better (also startlingly, by the Atlantic Monthly!): https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/boycott-the-gop/550907/
I would argue that a Kang v. Kodos matchup only shows that a “best person” mentality was not present in the primaries, at the state/local level, etc.
—Patrick
Undoubtedly the primaries is a big problem. If both parties implemented runoff voting even in the primaries then we'd have presented very different choices, I think, than what we got.
Or, at the minimum, the candidates would have had to present themselves much more moderately.
I can't agree with the Atlantic's article, though. But my primary issue is that all they claim Trump is doing has been done by previous presidents, just a lot more quietly and without as much exposure.
Trump openly embraces the villainy other politicians hide behind closed doors.
So for me, I know they are cheating. The question is would I rather have the one who is open and forthcoming (if not apologetic) or the one who is successful at hiding it?
And yes, I'm talking about all past presidents, not just one party or the other.
Or, at the minimum, the candidates would have had to present themselves much more moderately.
I can't agree with the Atlantic's article, though. But my primary issue is that all they claim Trump is doing has been done by previous presidents, just a lot more quietly and without as much exposure.
Trump openly embraces the villainy other politicians hide behind closed doors.
So for me, I know they are cheating. The question is would I rather have the one who is open and forthcoming (if not apologetic) or the one who is successful at hiding it?
And yes, I'm talking about all past presidents, not just one party or the other.
I'm not sure I agree with the Atlantic either. It is definitely strategic voting, which doesn't seem to be the right choice to me. That said, I don't think they mean this to just be about Trump (which they state explicitly, I just believe them in that assertion) and more about a shift in the party as a whole, making it less palatable to those in the center or more traditional base.
They specifically point to two things that they use to justify this, and both have to do with Trump (messing with ongoing investigations, and allegedly colluding with foreign governments).
That's it. That's the whole reason they give for entirely voting against the republican party regardless of who the democrats offer in every race up and down the chain.
So I don't believe them when they suggest it's a party shift and not one bad apple.
That said, the reason one bad apple made it is because he energized people that were previously marginalized. You could say he was the party's answer to Bernie, and to a lessor degree Obama.
But in my mind, he's simply the pendulum swing of the previous 8 years of bad administration. I know most people here love Obama and what he accomplished, but I think you're underestimating just how disliked his policies were - starting with the ACA, not defending DOMA, changing his position on same sex marriage, etc. The Supreme Court striking down state's marriage rights during his administration is partially blamed on him and his slow but steady change in how he chose to execute the law.
The pendulum always swings back, and the harder it was pulled up in one direction, the further it swings back the other.
So while there's enough blame to go around, keep in mind the double digits percentage of the US population that vehemently disagreed with the democratic platform that has been pushed onto them during Obama's terms.
And the fact that Obama is still out, actively creating a base and campaign as we speak is only going to keep the heat under that fire.
About the only thing that Trump has done that can't easily be undone during the next presidency was one supreme court justice nomination, and that was only to replace a conservative judge so the court didn't move any further left.
If that's all he accomplishes, a lot of people will still call his presidency a success, idiot that he is.
I suspect more than one judge is kicking themselves for not retiring during Obama's administration, and hoping they can outlast this one.
Probably not because one died during his administration and Obama wasn't allowed to have his nominee heard.
Zappit
Staff member
There's a literal, actual Nazi going to run on the GOP ticket in Illinois. He's going to get the nomination. He's running unopposed, but wouldn't you think that the Republicans in that state would put someone - ANYONE - up against him just to say they're, you know, NOT the party of Nazis?
Seriously, throw a name out there. You don't have to even fund the campaign. How much does it seriously take to just make a "We're not Nazi people" statement?
Seriously, throw a name out there. You don't have to even fund the campaign. How much does it seriously take to just make a "We're not Nazi people" statement?
I'm voting for the hamster.
Everyone knows he won’t be elected. Democrats have always won that seat, the highest voted republican got all of 35% of the vote years ago.[DOUBLEPOST=1517959951,1517959704][/DOUBLEPOST]
Given that the American population voted those senators into those seats one could presume the senate had a duty to act according to their constituent’s desires.
One might call it a mandate.
At any rate the Democrats can and would/will do the same thing if the opposite circumstance arises. Contact your senator and have them craft legislation that forces a time limit on the senate or similar.
It’s a sword that cuts both ways though.
Your best bet is to keep congress staffed with people who truly represent you.
GasBandit
Staff member
Wisconsin too. This guy is running for Congress in our 1st district-
THAT. IS. NOT. THE. FUCKING. POINT.
And in the current climate, how can you be so sure he won't get elected? Just wait. Fox news is certain to come down on his side to "stick it to the libtards."
What? That isn't true. Like at all.
Sure, they didn't provide an exhaustive list; just a few examples, really. But it is an op-ed, not investigative journalism.
Dave
Staff member
Not sure how real this is, but it is the Washington Post.
Trump wants military parades in Washington...and it's close to happening.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...91602206fb7_story.html?utm_term=.424616657942[DOUBLEPOST=1517971872,1517971783][/DOUBLEPOST]Welp:
Pentagon confirms this as true.
Trump wants military parades in Washington...and it's close to happening.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...91602206fb7_story.html?utm_term=.424616657942[DOUBLEPOST=1517971872,1517971783][/DOUBLEPOST]Welp:
Pentagon confirms this as true.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/chicag...d-congressional-district-lipinski-newman/amp/
The local Republican Party has denounced him publicly. He’s not going to win. The district is so well gerrymandered that he cannot possibly win.
Why would the Republican Party spend any money or time there?
And because of state laws they can’t control whether he wins the Republican Party primary or not. They’re open to all whoever meets the requirements, and the voters choose.
So tell me what is the point? Is the point the bad gerrymandering that makes this race a lost cause? Is the point that in a fair and equal society even bad evil people can throw their name in a hat and if they convince enough other people to vote for them they can attain public office?
Or is it just a freak outlier among thousands of political positions where you can pretend that one person represents the entire party and/or the downfall of that party?
It’s a puff piece of journalism intended to get people’s dander up.
In your case it seems to have worked a little too well.
Unfortunately bringing attention to idiots like him is the wrong thing to do, but I guess the “news” organization that published it is getting mad money from ad views, so who cares what consequences it may have.
That’s interesting. Here’s a little history of military parades in the US and some supposition on why we have them less frequently, seemingly, than other countries:
The point is the perception that you seem to be okay with Nazis running because "they won't win." Really?
I read an interesting article earlier that said the US stopped doing large military parades during the later years of the Cold War as a way to draw distinction between us and the Soviet Union. Apparently it became (and still is for many) a symbol of totalitarianism in the eyes of Americans.