Politics - Jason X

[smjjames]

  On 8/30/2017 at 10:09 PM, HoonDing said:

You're the country starting WWIII because of a tiny hands tweet.

 

Yeeaahhhhh.......

 

I just hope he doesn't overreact to NK, though it seems equally likely that NK would decide that Trump is impotent and make a major miscalculation.

[Namutree]

  On 8/30/2017 at 6:08 PM, Sharp_one said:

It seems the left is starting to recognize antifa for what they really are. Nazi in disguise.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/powerpost/wp/2017/08/30/pelosi-condemns-violent-actions-of-antifa-protesters/

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/yes-antifa-is-the-moral-equivalent-of-neo-nazis/2017/08/30/9a13b2f6-8d00-11e7-91d5-ab4e4bb76a3a_story.html?utm_term=.827cf384ca47

More like communists. Which is worse. If they were merely nazis they'd be more tolerable.

 

 

  On 8/30/2017 at 7:07 PM, Hurlshot said:

I've been reading up on the Patriot Prayer group and Joey Gibson. Talk about a crazy story, this guy seems to be doing everything he can to distance himself from white supremacists and denounce racists, and he is still getting attacked.

 

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/23/whos-behind-this-weekends-right-wing-rally-at-crissy-field/

 

Hopefully all this stuff dies down a bit soon so we can start having actual dialogue.

It's not about fighting fascists. It's about trying to intimidate the rightwing into accepting their control over acceptable ideas, because no one except spoiled brats with zero real world experience would entertain their self destructive ideology so long as they had a choice.

 

 

  On 8/30/2017 at 7:01 PM, smjjames said:

 

The antifa (the anarchists and the ones descended from anti-fascist groups from the 1930's and 1940's) are the ones who think the only solution to the alt-right is to fight back with violence instead of peacefully. The Black Bloc (is that the same as BLM?) and Black Lives Matter generally prefer peaceful rather than violence.

 

"Fight back" is an interesting way to frame assaulting people guilty of nothing more than utilizing their civic rights. Also, you might be overrating how peaceful BLM is.

[Orogun01]

  On 8/30/2017 at 7:45 PM, smjjames said:

The libertarians tend to be well, um... kinda crazy.

 

@volourn: ..... you're cherrypicking...

 

Anyways, for some reason, CNN cut away early from Trump's tax speech while everybody else stayed on http://thehill.com/homenews/media/348598-cnn-cuts-away-from-trump-tax-speech FTFE (**** The Fourth Estate) *shrug*.

Hey I voted Trump, you give me a Libertarian that can stay on point and has a campaign backing them and I'll vote crazy again. Cuz **** the system.

[Malcador]

That seems like a pretty accurate way to frame it, actually. At least reading the whole sentence there.

[Gfted1]

  On 8/30/2017 at 10:09 PM, HoonDing said:

You're the country starting WWIII because of a tiny hands tweet.

Muahahaha, we pass gas in the general direction of NK's puny missiles:

 

US Missiles Destroy Airborne Target in Successful Defense Test.

 

[smjjames]

In retrospect, all of the candidates sucked. I was prepared to vote third party, then it turned out both Stein and Johnson sucked.

 

 

  On 8/30/2017 at 11:07 PM, Gfted1 said:

 

  On 8/30/2017 at 10:09 PM, HoonDing said:

You're the country starting WWIII because of a tiny hands tweet.

Muahahaha, we pass gas in the general direction of NK's puny missiles:

 

US Missiles Destroy Airborne Target in Successful Defense Test.
 

 

 

Don't they ever plan a 'random surprise attack within a certain period'? Because that's a heck of a lot closer to what a real situation would be rather than knowing down to the exact second something is going to be launched. Not to mention more impressive. Though I guess it'd be problematic to do so given that it takes a long time to plan and prepare for a test like that.

Edited August 30, 2017 by smjjames

[Malcador]

  On 8/30/2017 at 11:07 PM, Gfted1 said:

 

  On 8/30/2017 at 10:09 PM, HoonDing said:

You're the country starting WWIII because of a tiny hands tweet.

Muahahaha, we pass gas in the general direction of NK's puny missiles:

 

US Missiles Destroy Airborne Target in Successful Defense Test.

 

As any (real) developer will tell you, you can play a lot of games if you're in with the QA staff

[Agiel]

  On 8/30/2017 at 11:13 PM, smjjames said:

In retrospect, all of the candidates sucked. I was prepared to vote third party, then it turned out both Stein and Johnson sucked.

 

 

  On 8/30/2017 at 11:07 PM, Gfted1 said:

 

  On 8/30/2017 at 10:09 PM, HoonDing said:

You're the country starting WWIII because of a tiny hands tweet.

Muahahaha, we pass gas in the general direction of NK's puny missiles:

 

US Missiles Destroy Airborne Target in Successful Defense Test.

 

 

 

Don't they ever plan a 'random surprise attack within a certain period'? Because that's a heck of a lot closer to what a real situation would be rather than knowing down to the exact second something is going to be launched. Not to mention more impressive. Though I guess it'd be problematic to do so given that it takes a long time to plan and prepare for a test like that.

 

During Aegis BMD exercises the training ship is brought to alert status for an extended period of time, but is not told precisely when the launch of the target will occur:

 

https://youtu.be/_pr9WY2Xyj0?t=59s

 

In any case an IRBM attack on Japan or Guam isn't what the worry is, but tube and rocket artillery attacks on Seoul. I'm sure Mattis' more tempered tone is owed to the fact that unlike Trump he's 100% cognizant to the fact that a misstep could lead to an economic depression the likes we haven't seen since the Great Depression from the destruction of Seoul that will change the course of human history for many years to come, even if no American lives save for those living in or stationed in Korea will be directly affected.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Agiel

[smjjames]

Makes sense I guess. I thought it was planned down to the minute or something. Still, pretty good so far.

[SonicMage117]

Edit: Wrong discussion. That's what I got for having multiple wimdows open on my phone internet browser.

Edited August 31, 2017 by SonicMage117

[smjjames]

Not sure what that has to do with politics....

[SonicMage117]

Yeah. Nvm, wrong place lol

[Wrath of Dagon]

  On 8/30/2017 at 7:34 PM, Guard Dog said:

 

  On 8/30/2017 at 5:02 PM, Wrath of Dagon said:

 

  On 8/30/2017 at 3:39 PM, smjjames said:

I hate to break it to you, but the Republicans don't believe in liberal Democracy either.

But Democrats are far, far worse. Granted both parties are corrupt, but without changing the electoral system nothing can be done about it.

 

 

Have you ever considered not voting for Republicans and Democrats? If we get enough people to do that we CAN start changing things a little without screwing with the Constitution. It has happened before. You don't see any Whigs running around do you?

 

Oh... wait: http://www.modernwhig.org/

 

I've considered it and decided it was illogical. All I'd be doing is helping the Dems, which are by far the greater evil. Whigs didn't disappear because people didn't vote for them, it was because the party split internally. Anyway, politics worked far different back then. There's no chance either Libertarians or Greens will ever become a viable party, not that I have any liking for either anyway. Republican party probably will disappear eventually once it can no longer win elections, but as I've said the consequences will be dire. Edited August 31, 2017 by Wrath of Dagon

[smjjames]

It'll be a long time before the Republicans become non-viable since the Democrats have to work through their own problems since they're at their lowest ebb politically since what, the 1920's.

 

It's always possible that the Republicans will reform themselves and adapt, parties change over time. The Democrats and Republicans today aren't quite the same as they were 50 years ago, much less 100 years ago. It'd also be possible that the Republicans fade out and some other party rises in it's place.

 

Seems like we're going through one of those periods in which we're shifting from one party system to another, in any case, we're definetly going through a politically turbulent period.

Edited August 31, 2017 by smjjames

[SonicMage117]

If I may, I don't think that will ever happen. Republicans will be around for as long as Democratics. Even if it was legally removed and banned by the council in courtus by legislative act, Republicans would still exists as a resistance of some sort. Republicans now seem to be stronger than they were 10 years ago.

 

Even with all the Trump festerings and criticisms, Republicans seem to be in a good place but like anything else, if people only focus on the bad or hear the bad, then the bad is all they will see and share which is what I reckon these old eyes have been witnessing from the news.

 

Either way though I'm not a republican. Just thought I'd say my piece. Sorry for interupting.

[Namutree]

  On 8/31/2017 at 3:51 AM, SonicMage117 said:

If I may, I don't think that will ever happen. Republicans will be around for as long as Democratics. Even if it was legally removed and banned by the council in courtus by legislative act, Republicans would still exists as a resistance of some sort. Republicans now seem to be stronger than they were 10 years ago.

 

Even with all the Trump festerings and criticisms, Republicans seem to be in a good place but like anything else, if people only focus on the bad or hear the bad, then the bad is all they will see and share which is what I reckon these old eyes have been witnessing from the news.

 

Either way though I'm not a republican. Just thought I'd say my piece. Sorry for interupting.

It's likely that WoD is talking about the long term demographic shift and it's electoral consequences. Though I could be wrong.

[Gromnir]

  On 8/31/2017 at 3:04 AM, smjjames said:

It'll be a long time before the Republicans become non-viable since the Democrats have to work through their own problems since they're at their lowest ebb politically since what, the 1920's.

 

 

depends on your metric, but if you are going by party affiliation o' Congress, President and state governors, then early 1930s would likely be the last time we saw similar %s.  herbert hoover and the 71st Congress gave the republicans overwhelming numbers in Washington, although their extreme short-lived dominance might be a historical lesson for those current in power. so, 1930s.

 

'course  the 1930 democratic party would be unrecognizable to most folks today.  red state v. blue state nomenclature, which actual only got started 'cause o' tv coverage and arbitrary color assignations by networks on their visual display/maps (color designations actual changed a few times in early years)  were largely reversed back in the early 30s, and for decades to come.  heck, such inversion were commonplace well into the 60s. the cornerstone o' Kennedy's election platform were not civil rights. Kennedy were a hawk who were primarily running as the Stop-Russian-Menace alternative to his republican opponents. were kennedy who created the "special relationship" 'tween the US and Israel.  heck, were kennedy who approved and executed the bay o' pigs.  

 

point is we believe it is more likely we see an evolution o' the existing parties rather than an emergent 3rd party.  short o' drastic/cataclysmic economic circumstances or a party-wide scandal o' brobdingnagian proportions, evolution o' the parties makes more sense and has more historic basis than does extinction level events.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps keep in mind that summer o' last year, the prediction were the republicans were the party which were gonna be nadir.  after the forgone conclusion o' a democrat President being elected in 2016, along with likelihood o' democrat control o' the senate... not to mention the likely prospect o' a more sympathetic Court, the pundits were already calling for republicans to do some deep soul searching. 

 

less than six months pass and everything changes.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Gromnir

[Namutree]

  On 8/31/2017 at 3:58 AM, Gromnir said:

ps keep in mind that summer o' last year, the prediction were the republicans were the party which were gonna be nadir.  after the forgone conclusion o' a democrat President being elected in 2016, along with likelihood o' democrat control o' the senate... not to mention the likely prospect o' a more sympathetic Court, the pundits were already calling for republicans to do some deep soul searching. 

 

 

 

less than six months pass and everything changes.

 

That was only because those people were clueless. Trump's win was plenty predictable. Predicting events isn't so hard when pay close attention to things. I think one handsome Obsidian poster named, Namutree (peace be upon him) saw Trump's win coming thanks to his brilliant insight; oh, and a crackpot named Val too, but he just got lucky.

[smjjames]

  On 8/31/2017 at 3:57 AM, Namutree said:

 

  On 8/31/2017 at 3:51 AM, SonicMage117 said:

If I may, I don't think that will ever happen. Republicans will be around for as long as Democratics. Even if it was legally removed and banned by the council in courtus by legislative act, Republicans would still exists as a resistance of some sort. Republicans now seem to be stronger than they were 10 years ago.

 

Even with all the Trump festerings and criticisms, Republicans seem to be in a good place but like anything else, if people only focus on the bad or hear the bad, then the bad is all they will see and share which is what I reckon these old eyes have been witnessing from the news.

 

Either way though I'm not a republican. Just thought I'd say my piece. Sorry for interupting.

It's likely that WoD is talking about the long term demographic shift and it's electoral consequences. Though I could be wrong.

 

 

Yeah, if the Republican party doesn't adapt, that's what will do them in. Which is what WoD was talking about.

 

@Gromnir: Yep, turned out that despite the divisions and turmoil on the Republican side, it was the Democrats who were deep in the hole and were the ones who needed soul searching.

 

As me and Gromnir were saying, parties change over time and if one is unable to adapt, then we'll most likely see that one split apart, which is actually how the Republicans got their start.

Edited August 31, 2017 by smjjames

[Guard Dog]

  On 8/31/2017 at 2:44 AM, Wrath of Dagon said:

 

  On 8/30/2017 at 7:34 PM, Guard Dog said:

Have you ever considered not voting for Republicans and Democrats? If we get enough people to do that we CAN start changing things a little without screwing with the Constitution. It has happened before. You don't see any Whigs running around do you?

 

Oh... wait: http://www.modernwhig.org/

 

 There's no chance either Libertarians or Greens will ever become a viable party, 

 

 

I wouldn't bet on that. The numbers are going up every election since 2000. Too slow for my liking but heading in the right direction. 

 

http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/12/growth-in-libertarian-vote-percentage-in-us-federal-races-2004-2016/

[Gromnir]

  On 8/31/2017 at 4:20 AM, Guard Dog said:

 

  On 8/31/2017 at 2:44 AM, Wrath of Dagon said:

 

  On 8/30/2017 at 7:34 PM, Guard Dog said:

Have you ever considered not voting for Republicans and Democrats? If we get enough people to do that we CAN start changing things a little without screwing with the Constitution. It has happened before. You don't see any Whigs running around do you?

 

Oh... wait: http://www.modernwhig.org/

 

 There's no chance either Libertarians or Greens will ever become a viable party, 

 

 

I wouldn't bet on that. The numbers are going up every election since 2000. Too slow for my liking but heading in the right direction. 

 

http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/12/growth-in-libertarian-vote-percentage-in-us-federal-races-2004-2016/

 

 

numbers can be misleading.

 

http://www.ballot-access.org/2001/0101.html

 

compare

 

http://ballot-access.org/2017/01/29/january-2017-ballot-access-news-print-edition/

 

libertarians as percentage o' the overall popular vote for house, senate and/or President ain't actual changed much since 2000.  got a few more seats, but actual % increase in people voting libertarian has changed less than a full percent.  throw you a bone and say for the sake o' argument that libertarians has increased as representative o' a percentage o' the voting public by one full % point. hopeful you ain't prognosticating another 1% every 16 years.  to makes meaningful impact, probably need to be in the ~20% range, yes? so, at the current rate o' increase we should be anticipating a serious libertarian presence in... 2321?  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Deadly_Nightshade]

  On 8/30/2017 at 11:01 PM, Orogun01 said:

Hey I voted Trump, you give me a Libertarian that can stay on point and has a campaign backing them and I'll vote crazy again. Cuz **** the system.

 

 

So... Gary Johnson?

It seems like he would fit your criteria and then some.

[Raithe]

Rawstory - "Alt-Gov" Twitter accounts pitch in to help Coast Guard and Responders

[Guard Dog]

@Gromnir

 

One other number to watch out four in terms of voter registration and voting numbers is nine states do not recognize the LP as a registration option for various reasons. Like Ohio for example, but that is about to change. In Ohio in 2016 Johnson/Weld were actually on the ballot as independents. Quite a few LP candidates for various offices in various states are actually on the ballot as independent. It won't make a big jump in the numbers but they are a bit higher than they seem when you take that into account. But dues paying party membership is definitely up. It grew 25% between 2012 & 2015 since Johnson/Gray got over 1.2M votes in the 2012 Presidential race. It grew by 30% from 2014 to 2016. Existing member renewal rates are up 25%. Donations in 2016 were up 566% over 2012. And as you know Johnson/Weld got around 3.5M votes. 

 

Presidential campaigns are expensive. A LOT of resources went into ballot access. And that left local and congressional candidates short of help from the national party.  And I know you and I agree the cause would be better served by getting a few LP candidates into Congress and State Houses. But Presidential races grow the brand and that has to happen too. Like I said last year. This isn't a movement, it's a political party and that means it needs a face.

 

The growth is slow. Painfully slow. The reason is from the 80's to 2000 this party had no sense of itself. It became a single issue party: legalize drugs. And it had more than a drop of anarchism in the platform beyond that. Earlier smjames referred to libertarians as a little crazy. That reputation was earned. The big L vs. small L struggle is still a thing but since 2004 the small L's are winning and things are becoming better organized. We still have guys like John MacAfee around and making trouble but there are fewer now than ever.

 

It is a damned shame Johnson/Weld did not get the magic number of 5%. Automatic ballot access, and election assistance in 2020 we the real prize. That was the biggest goal of voting for them. No one expected them to actually get elected. That is why I tried so hard to convince people in safe states to give them their vote. There was no chance Clinton was going to lose California. If 100k voters there voted for Johnson/Weld and just 20k in every other safe red or safe blue state did they would have. The 2016 race was always about 2020.

 

In 2020 the two candidates with the inside track for a Presidential nomination are Austin Peterson (who is running for Senate as a Republican in 2018) and Justin Amash who was defeated in the 2016 Primary. Both are capable and likeable but will struggle with name recognition and getting media attention. Jesse Ventura, Bill Weld, and John MacAfee are all exploring running but it would be a mistake to nominate any of them. We need a serious candidate, not another Bob Barr. 

[redneckdevil]

  On 8/30/2017 at 3:56 PM, Hurlshot said:

Would fixing the electoral college system even change the results of the last election? It just sounds like a way to make people in more populated states even more marginalized when it comes to the Federal election. Of course, us in California can take solace in the fact that we have better wine, food, and weather than everyone else. Oh, and Yosemite.

No it wouldn't have, and it shouldn't.

How exactly does it marginalized more populated states? They still get a huge amount of electoral votes in, meaning tic for tac they STILL have more influence. Going with popular vote means their influence gets to dictate everyone else, whereas with electoral vote, tic for tac with another lower state they have more influence, but smaller states still can pull together and overcome a single states influence with it.

You will agree in America there are many different people and culture in each state that is different from others right?

Also think about this, they do away with winner take all, I'm sorry but that just means California will have less influence as it does now, because the mass amount of non Democrats will actually have a voice. Same for other states that are mainly one party, people of opposing parties will have a reason to actually vote because even if their party doesn't win all, the votes still get towards who they wanted.

 

Everyone gets a say or the most people get to say instead. Which is better?