Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

Carson has been dropping in the polls, though it sort of looks like he's stabilized. While he'll certainly take his slice of the voters and there hasn't been a poll asking who would stick with him should he go independent, having both of them go independent probably won't split the party, but it'll definetly create some deep rifts to the point where it wouldn't take much to shatter it.

If they both stick around and it comes to a hotly contested convention, then it probably will severely fracture the party. Also check out http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republican-brokered-convention-donald-trump/

Oh yeah, looks like the primetime debate will be down to maybe 7 or 8, Trump, Carson, Rubio, Cruz, Bush, Kasich, and Christie with Fiorina as an iffy maybe.

[Spehss _]

Carson has been dropping in the polls, though it sort of looks like he's stabilized. While he'll certainly take his slice of the voters and there hasn't been a poll asking who would stick with him should he go independent, having both of them go independent probably won't split the party, but it'll definetly create some deep rifts to the point where it wouldn't take much to shatter it.

Kind of exciting to think about this. New parties forming from an old party, more than two major parties forming, it could be history in the making.

And maybe the government would be less shit...although in reality more political parties would just gum up Congress more, I suppose, what with party loyalty and the "I refuse to cooperate with people not in my party" mentality.

[smjjames]

Carson has been dropping in the polls, though it sort of looks like he's stabilized. While he'll certainly take his slice of the voters and there hasn't been a poll asking who would stick with him should he go independent, having both of them go independent probably won't split the party, but it'll definetly create some deep rifts to the point where it wouldn't take much to shatter it.

Kind of exciting to think about this. New parties forming from an old party, more than two major parties forming, it could be history in the making.

And maybe the government would be less shit...although in reality more political parties would just gum up Congress more, I suppose, what with party loyalty and the "I refuse to cooperate with people not in my party" mentality.

It'll be history in the making, yeah, though not the first time, google image list of timelines of US political parties. Also, there have been times where third parties have had significant numbers, though not since the first half of the 20th century. Wikipedia lists some, but only goes back to the end of the Reconstruction period after the Civil war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_members_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_officeholders_in_the_United_States

[mainiac]

Then we just need to break the moderate democrats off of the rest of the party, and we'll be set. Far-right, mid-right, mid-left, far left.

The problem with that is there are basically no non-moderate democrats.  Bernie Sanders proposes ideas that are less radical and less expensive then Jeb Bush.

[RedKing]

Then we just need to break the moderate democrats off of the rest of the party, and we'll be set. Far-right, mid-right, mid-left, far left.

More like break off non-moderate Democrats. I don't think moderate Dems are a minority in their own party the way moderate Republicans are.

And it'd be more like far-right, mid-right, center, center-left. We don't have a far-left party in the US, at least not one that has any electoral standing whatsoever.

[smjjames]

Then we just need to break the moderate democrats off of the rest of the party, and we'll be set. Far-right, mid-right, mid-left, far left.

More like break off non-moderate Democrats. I don't think moderate Dems are a minority in their own party the way moderate Republicans are.

And it'd be more like far-right, mid-right, center, center-left. We don't have a far-left party in the US, at least not one that has any electoral standing whatsoever.

Yeah, compared to the Republicans, even the most left leaning Democrat looks pretty moderate.

I don't think we'll see any split in the Democrat party anytime soon, not with Hillary being such a force, unless maybe Sanders decides to take it all the way to the convention or something.

[RedKing]

Even if he does, he doesn't have the support to split, nor is the discontent with Clinton enough to amount to anything. Most Dems are fine with her, the remainder (and the left-leaning independents) may not like her but they don't see her as a "driving over the cliff" option like Trump is viewed. Dems are in no danger of a split anytime soon.

I think the only way they split is if they get into power with large, safe margins and then fail to enact any substantial policy changes to the Left (kind of like what happened when the GOP took over Congress and then didn't magically turn the clock back 50 years on progress). Then you might see enough discontent in the left wing of the party to make some waves.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Or if the Left Democrats get on board with my brilliant plan to help elect Donald Trump and drive over the cliff intentionally.

Now granted, I am motivated to do this more as an expression of mocking the vacuous absurdity we live in than Just As Planned, but it could go that way.

[RedKing]

The problem with driving over the cliff is the landing.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's basically inevitable, the choice is in how we go about it. Hillary Clinton is an opportunistic snake of the highest order, perhaps the very human avatar of the enduring security state establishment.

As you well know, she will make all sorts of idealistic liberal speeches across her campaign, ride the Woman President train to victory, and then promptly turn around wearing her I Heart Drone Strikes shirt like Bush and Obama before her. Now, will Donald do the same? Yeah, pretty much, except he'll wear a tiny predictor drone pin during the campaign instead of waiting for the results.

The key difference is that Hillary is a veteran of politics and Donald is a ham-fisted idiot. He will almost undoubtedly mishandle the power he is granted so horribly that the security state will be left torn open and bleeding out by his unsubtle and prideful actions. This can be weighed against Hillary, who might throw the dogs a bone on something social, I don't know, let's say transgender rights, and by the time her term ends police cruisers will be replaced with DoD surplus and the right to trial will resemble swiss cheese. Unlike Donald, these changes will stay because she won't be dumb about implementing them.

We need that dumb. We need this nascent tyranny to get at the helm someone who will both be willing to use it and is also a total fuckup so that it will at least stop being entrenched.

And I see no man better positioned to fill that role than Donald John Trump.

[smjjames]

The problem with driving over the cliff is the landing.

Which varies from smashed up but still able to move to a mangled unrecognizeable mass and the entire cliff shatters and collapses.

It's basically inevitable, the choice is in how we go about it. Hillary Clinton is an opportunistic snake of the highest order, perhaps the very human avatar of the enduring security state establishment.

As you well know, she will make all sorts of idealistic liberal speeches across her campaign, ride the Woman President train to victory, and then promptly turn around wearing her I Heart Drone Strikes shirt like Bush and Obama before her. Now, will Donald do the same? Yeah, pretty much, except he'll wear a tiny predictor drone pin during the campaign instead of waiting for the results.

The key difference is that Hillary is a veteran of politics and Donald is a ham-fisted idiot. He will almost undoubtedly mishandle the power he is granted so horribly that the security state will be left torn open and bleeding out by his unsubtle and prideful actions. This can be weighed against Hillary, who might throw the dogs a bone on something social, I don't know, let's say transgender rights, and by the time her term ends police cruisers will be replaced with DoD surplus and the right to trial will resemble swiss cheese. Unlike Donald, these changes will stay because she won't be dumb about implementing them.

We need that dumb. We need this nascent tyranny to get at the helm someone who will both be willing to use it and is also a total fuckup so that it will at least stop being entrenched.

And I see no man better positioned to fill that role than Donald John Trump.

So, basically we have to choose the lesser of two forms of authoritarian state?

Who knows, maybe we do need to hit rock bottom to snap out of it, though me and RedKing are referring to driving over the economic cliff.

[mainiac]

I get it, I get it.  You are angry she laughed at your valentines card in middle school. 

So, basically we have to choose the lesser of two forms of authoritarian state?

Yeah, she a regular Donitz.

[Shadowlord]

The problem with driving over the cliff is the landing.

Which varies from smashed up but still able to move to a mangled unrecognizeable mass and the entire cliff shatters and collapses.

It's basically inevitable, the choice is in how we go about it. Hillary Clinton is an opportunistic snake of the highest order, perhaps the very human avatar of the enduring security state establishment.

As you well know, she will make all sorts of idealistic liberal speeches across her campaign, ride the Woman President train to victory, and then promptly turn around wearing her I Heart Drone Strikes shirt like Bush and Obama before her. Now, will Donald do the same? Yeah, pretty much, except he'll wear a tiny predictor drone pin during the campaign instead of waiting for the results.

The key difference is that Hillary is a veteran of politics and Donald is a ham-fisted idiot. He will almost undoubtedly mishandle the power he is granted so horribly that the security state will be left torn open and bleeding out by his unsubtle and prideful actions. This can be weighed against Hillary, who might throw the dogs a bone on something social, I don't know, let's say transgender rights, and by the time her term ends police cruisers will be replaced with DoD surplus and the right to trial will resemble swiss cheese. Unlike Donald, these changes will stay because she won't be dumb about implementing them.

We need that dumb. We need this nascent tyranny to get at the helm someone who will both be willing to use it and is also a total fuckup so that it will at least stop being entrenched.

And I see no man better positioned to fill that role than Donald John Trump.

So, basically we have to choose the lesser of two forms of authoritarian state?

Wouldn't that be Hillary? Trump thinks he's Big Brother and can just change history or reality at will, and people will just believe him. (Or find a source that agrees with him, and ignore all the contrary evidence)

Example:

Another story from the Express:


SEEMS CREDIBLE</sarcasm>

[MetalSlimeHunt]

So, basically we have to choose the lesser of two forms of authoritarian state?

It's possible, but if there's anyway out it's in massive disruption to the system, which for the US can only come from within. Donald Trump is a rare opportunity.

Who knows, maybe we do need to hit rock bottom to snap out of it, though me and RedKing are referring to driving over the economic cliff.

It's all interconnected. Economic prosperity and social prosperity go hand and hand, or at least they do for countries who's economic prosperity actually has a substantial effect on the lives of the general population.

But also, our economic insolvency has become a pretty chronic condition. I'm convinced we're nearing or at the end of an age for this economic paradigm, and this is without including the possibility of mass automation. The shift will require people who are willing to consider unconventional solutions and programs beyond things like the TPP and jobspam unless we want the next reincarnation of "capitalism" to be some full cyberpunk shit.

I get it, I get it.  You are angry she laughed at your valentines card in middle school. 

All I wanted was to steal Bill Clinton's wife and in doing so become the ultimate playa. Is that so wrong?

[smjjames]

The problem with driving over the cliff is the landing.

Which varies from smashed up but still able to move to a mangled unrecognizeable mass and the entire cliff shatters and collapses.

It's basically inevitable, the choice is in how we go about it. Hillary Clinton is an opportunistic snake of the highest order, perhaps the very human avatar of the enduring security state establishment.

As you well know, she will make all sorts of idealistic liberal speeches across her campaign, ride the Woman President train to victory, and then promptly turn around wearing her I Heart Drone Strikes shirt like Bush and Obama before her. Now, will Donald do the same? Yeah, pretty much, except he'll wear a tiny predictor drone pin during the campaign instead of waiting for the results.

The key difference is that Hillary is a veteran of politics and Donald is a ham-fisted idiot. He will almost undoubtedly mishandle the power he is granted so horribly that the security state will be left torn open and bleeding out by his unsubtle and prideful actions. This can be weighed against Hillary, who might throw the dogs a bone on something social, I don't know, let's say transgender rights, and by the time her term ends police cruisers will be replaced with DoD surplus and the right to trial will resemble swiss cheese. Unlike Donald, these changes will stay because she won't be dumb about implementing them.

We need that dumb. We need this nascent tyranny to get at the helm someone who will both be willing to use it and is also a total fuckup so that it will at least stop being entrenched.

And I see no man better positioned to fill that role than Donald John Trump.

So, basically we have to choose the lesser of two forms of authoritarian state?

Wouldn't that be Hillary? Trump thinks he's Big Brother and can just change history or reality at will, and people will just believe him. (Or find a source that agrees with him, and ignore all the contrary evidence)

Example:

Another story from the Express:


SEEMS CREDIBLE</sarcasm>

MSH was just making the point that instead of being an agile <insert animal of choice> in a china shop, Trump is a hyperactive bull in a crowded china shop.

Who knows, maybe we do need to hit rock bottom to snap out of it, though me and RedKing are referring to driving over the economic cliff.

It's all interconnected. Economic prosperity and social prosperity go hand and hand, or at least they do for countries who's economic prosperity actually has a substantial effect on the lives of the general population.

But also, our economic insolvency has become a pretty chronic condition. I'm convinced we're nearing or at the end of an age for this economic paradigm, and this is without including the possibility of mass automation. The shift will require people who are willing to consider unconventional solutions and programs beyond things like the TPP and jobspam unless we want the next reincarnation of "capitalism" to be some full cyberpunk shit.

Yea, the whole debt thing is going to reach a point where we can't continue to kick the can down the road, it'll either be pay the bills or go default.