The Political Thread - Browncoat edition... down with the Alliance!

[injurai]

You don't vote so you don't have false hope, yet you still are disappointed enough to vent through the internet.

 

#JustSonicThings

[SonicMage117]

You don't vote so you don't have false hope, yet you still are disappointed enough to vent through the internet.

 

#JustSonicThings

Except that's not what I said....

 

I said I don't vote. How would I have false hope if I don't take side, that doesn't quite make sense. I was obviously talking about people who do vote and expect to have a voice. Hmmm... maybe I didn't communicate that well enough with my butchered english.

[injurai]

The alternative is you complain about things not making a difference on the internet because you have abdicated your responsibility to vote.

[SonicMage117]

I have never complained about things happening in politics or the leader in office. I just talk about the whiners who are complaining and the news/medial output which covers it. I never felt the need to vent about politics, nor did I ever think I was. That's why I say it's more entertainment to me than anything else bit watching others suffer because their base of opinion or difference of it was always an amusing ans interesting thing to me.

 

For example, the liberal getting ran over by the truck. It didn't bother me that he was protesting but it was pretty interesting and entertaining to see the video which showed him protesting and then getting hit. I also, found the comments hilarious so I couldn't help talk about it or post it here.

 

 

That said,

If I thought my opinion on the internet mattered, I'd post in a social media with my real name and with family/friends instead something like Facebook, Twitter, etc. If I thought my voice mattered at all in politics case, I'd vote. It would be useless for me to complain on a gaming forum which doesn't really take things in general (or me) seriously. And I'm okay with that

Edited January 27, 2019 by SonicMage117

[injurai]

Detached commentary on and consumption of reality as entertainment.

 

I think Sonic is a dedicated absurdist.

[SonicMage117]

Yup. I'm sure, nothing I say makes sense and everyting is just cooked on grill bologna, and not even well crafted bologna at that

 

Very well then.

 

 

 

Anyway, moving on....

More entertaining political stuff!

[Gorth]

I have not seen any evidence that systems with many parties actually operate any better. It seems that an even smaller portion of the population ends up controlling everything as the vote gets split so much. I suppose those systems become less polarized though as there is more solidarity among all the disparate groups.

Define "better"?.... Well, at least it works in a place like Denmark. They currently have 9 parties in parliament.

 

I do remember from my childhood and teenage years that there used to be quite a few more. I can remember at least 5 parties from top of my head not on this list. It has happened that the major parties actually formed governments across the "left/right" divide (something that might currently be unthinkable in the US)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Denmark

 

Is it efficient? Probably not. But, it seems to work. Many views gets represented and extremes generally gets avoided. Mind you, haven't been keeping tabs on the old country the last 17-18 years.

[injurai]

 

I have not seen any evidence that systems with many parties actually operate any better. It seems that an even smaller portion of the population ends up controlling everything as the vote gets split so much. I suppose those systems become less polarized though as there is more solidarity among all the disparate groups.

Define "better"?.... Well, at least it works in a place like Denmark. They currently have 9 parties in parliament.

 

I do remember from my childhood and teenage years that there used to be quite a few more. I can remember at least 5 parties from top of my head not on this list. It has happened that the major parties actually formed governments across the "left/right" divide (something that might currently be unthinkable in the US)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Denmark

 

Is it efficient? Probably not. But, it seems to work. Many views gets represented and extremes generally gets avoided. Mind you, haven't been keeping tabs on the old country the last 17-18 years.

 

 

I always forget about congressional/parliamentary seats when it comes to multiple parties. It always seems to me though that filling the top executive position is always more of a **** show the more parties there are. Usually resulting in some elite plurality to rule. I say usually but I keep thinking about the UK as my example.

[smjjames]

 

I have not seen any evidence that systems with many parties actually operate any better. It seems that an even smaller portion of the population ends up controlling everything as the vote gets split so much. I suppose those systems become less polarized though as there is more solidarity among all the disparate groups.

Define "better"?.... Well, at least it works in a place like Denmark. They currently have 9 parties in parliament.

 

I do remember from my childhood and teenage years that there used to be quite a few more. I can remember at least 5 parties from top of my head not on this list. It has happened that the major parties actually formed governments across the "left/right" divide (something that might currently be unthinkable in the US)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Denmark

 

Is it efficient? Probably not. But, it seems to work. Many views gets represented and extremes generally gets avoided. Mind you, haven't been keeping tabs on the old country the last 17-18 years.

 

 

Well, theres also differences in how the parties work in the US vs in Europe. They're much more rigid in Europe and there is far less crossover and stuff, which is how you have stuff like Rand Paul, a self proclaimed libertarian, wearing the Republican jersey and Trump puppeting the Republican party.

[Guard Dog]

Hillary Clinton in 2020? https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/427156-clinton-not-ruling-out-running-in-2020-report

 

Oh please please please please please please please please please let that happen! The absolute political mayhem that would cause would be sooo entertaining. 

[injurai]

F*ck

 

You know... I think people hate Trump enough that Hillary could actually have a chance this time around, and that pisses me off. Because now I think the DNC will be bold enough to actually try it. The primaries are going to be an absolute bloodbath.

[Maedhros]

Would be pretty easy for the other democrats to wreck her in the debates after what happened. Surely she's not this naive?

[Chilloutman]

F*ck

 

You know... I think people hate Trump enough that Hillary could actually have a chance this time around, and that pisses me off. Because now I think the DNC will be bold enough to actually try it. The primaries are going to be an absolute bloodbath.

 

If its Hillary vs Trump again, I am willing to put my moth salary on Trump, that fake outrage probably pushed more people on his side than other way around

[Keyrock]

Another round of Trump vs Hillary would be the most likely scenario where a 3rd party reaches the magical 5% threshold which would get them officially recognized nationwide. I mean, good luck finding 2 more loathsome candidates.

 

Of course, even if it does go down like that it will still be an uphill struggle for the Libertarians or Green Party (or any other independent, for that matter) to overcome the You're Throwing Away Your Vote fallacy.

Edited January 28, 2019 by Keyrock

[injurai]

Libertarian and Green parties are both kind of awful in their own ways as well, and I think there are far better sub-factions of either major party that would opt to run on a major ticket then venturing out under those brands.

[ShadySands]

Kinda moot once the party picks their nominee.

[Keyrock]

Libertarian and Green parties are both kind of awful in their own ways as well, and I think there are far better sub-factions of either major party that would opt to run on a major ticket then venturing out under those brands.

Libertarians have come the closest with Johnson getting 3% of the popular vote in 2016, if I remember correctly. I'm all for another independent party popping up and giving it a whirl, but I have doubts any newly formed party, even one spearheaded by a well known moderate democrat (those do still exist, right?) or moderate republican (ditto) could gather enough support quickly enough to threaten the 5% mark by 2020. Still, I wouldn't mind it being attempted.

 

Did you have anyone in particular in mind? Socialist grandpa perhaps? Amy Klobuchar? John Kasich?

Edited January 28, 2019 by Keyrock

[smjjames]

Hillary Clinton in 2020? https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/427156-clinton-not-ruling-out-running-in-2020-report

 

Oh please please please please please please please please please let that happen! The absolute political mayhem that would cause would be sooo entertaining. 

 

All she said is that she isn't closing the door and the article does mention that most former candidates never fully close the door to running again.

 

Still, I think she should stay out of it. However, even if she doesn't run, she's still going to play a significant king/queenmaker role whether people like it or not. Sure, her influence took a hit after 2016, but it's still a large influence.

[Guard Dog]

Kinda moot once the party picks their nominee.

Not true at  all. The Primaries can do tremendous damage to a candidate. Especially if the runner up does not "play ball" or the runner up's base feels jilted. The latter happened in '16. The former between Carter & Kennedy in '80.

[Guard Dog]

James if I were advising a Dem hopeful in '20 I'd tell them not to go within 100 miles of Hillary Clinton. Being seen kissing her ring (or rear) would NOT be helpful. 

[Guard Dog]

Don't you love how voting for a candidate you mostly agree with is somehow wasting you vote? And voting for one you find repulsive but happens to be slightly less so than the other major party candidate is somehow not wasting it? 

 

Do you know what happens when people stop voting for the lesser evil? The 3rd Party candidates will start winning and the Donkey's and Elephants will start running better candidates. 

[Malcador]

Don't you love how voting for a candidate you mostly agree with is somehow wasting you vote?

 

 

Is true though, that's one good thing about non-FPTP voting systems, I suppose.

[Zoraptor]

Would be pretty easy for the other democrats to wreck her in the debates after what happened.

 

Would they though? If Hillary runs it would be as The Anointed One again as in 2008 and 2016, and with the full support of the party's hierarchy. You'd have to be very brave or have no asterisks to give/ be outside the hierarchy to take her on seriously knowing that doing so and failing will put you at odds with the people deciding much of your political future. There would also be blatant attempts to keep problematic candidates away from the public and debates and to shield Hillary from them; and let's be frank: they'll label anyone taking her on as being The Russian Candidate and a stooge. So basically what happened in 2016, but on steroids since they seem to have decided the problem in 2016 was not that they foisted a crappy divisive establishment candidate and ran an awful campaign but that they didn't go all in enough with the terrible divisive candidate and awful campaigning.

[Guard Dog]

To all my fellow Americans here: https://www.bloombergquint.com/politics/another-year-another-1-trillion-in-new-debt-for-u-s-to-raise

 

You guys just keep on arguing about elephants vs donkeys and walls and medicare, who is going to impeach who and who tweeted what as though all that s--t was actually important. Pay no attention to me over here buying arable real estate, seed packs, ammunition, and gold buffaloes, eagles and maple leafs and silver polar bears. 

 

Tick tock tick tock....

[SonicMage117]

To all my fellow Americans here: https://www.bloombergquint.com/politics/another-year-another-1-trillion-in-new-debt-for-u-s-to-raise

 

You guys just keep on arguing about elephants vs donkeys and walls and medicare, who is going to impeach who and who tweeted what as though all that s--t was actually important. Pay no attention to me over here buying arable real estate, seed packs, ammunition, and gold buffaloes, eagles and maple leafs and silver polar bears.

 

Tick tock tick tock....

Shhhhh... You're talking too much truth.