Print

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

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

lefterly

If you are serious, just use it enough with a consistent meaning.

[mainiac]

And salty? Really? That's amusing coming from somebody whose handle should be Morton.

I'm salty?  Between the two of us I'm like 90% sure that I'm the one with the more left wing views but I am not the one saying I'm going to sit out an election out of spite.

Did you miss the anti-vaccine and anti-wifi stances?

He is a right winger.  His behavior is concern trolling.  It's like what Redking was just saying he would do in republican primaries but for a conversation.

[Rolepgeek]

That might work if their primary issues were isolationism. As it stands, both of them center their ideology on fundamentally opposed concepts: that the government has an important role and needs to do more vs. The government is doing too much and needs to pull back. The most they have in common is being fringe elements. And as for the Donald Trump argument, Donald Trump took over an existing party using support no one knew existed. You are arguing for a new party to be formed out of elements with nothing in common and no institutional support. Does that sound like a recipe for success? What do you even want out of such a party in the first place?

New party?

I was talking about it in context as like if it weren't a two-party system.

And I'd probably want a party with something like this as their proposed changes.

And salty? Really? That's amusing coming from somebody whose handle should be Morton.

I'm salty?  Between the two of us I'm like 90% sure that I'm the one with the more left wing views but I am not the one saying I'm going to sit out an election out of spite.

Spite. Yes. Only reason for any sort of protest against the establishment. Obviously.

Did you miss the anti-vaccine and anti-wifi stances?

He is a right winger.  His behavior is concern trolling.  It's like what Redking was just saying he would do in republican primaries but for a conversation.

Mainiac, don't start accusing others of trolling when you're literally advocating 'Hey guise go sign up to this place with a fake zipcode and post some inconvenient questions for Trump, you have to guise, democracy is at stake!!!'.

People have differing viewpoints from you. Deal with it. Or is it 'trolling' that I think some of Jill Stein's positions are well-thought-out and agreeable (though, less agreeable than the MAGA President to-be), compared to your insinuations that she's some sort of Russian plant?

When you say 'she talks a lot of sense', it sure as hell looks like trolling when the woman is saying 'wi-fi causes cancer' or whatever shit. She's insane. Or at least pretends to be.

[Guardian G.I.]

Hillary is quite salty about her ratings.

Don't despair, First Woman President™, even if every voter leaves you, you'll still have the loyal media, the establishment, the big business, and mainiac at your side! With allies like these, no one can ever stand against you!

[Harry Baldman]

I'm with Ispil. If I got to vote in both primaries, I'd vote my conscience in the Dem primary and vote for the biggest shitmonger imaginable in the Republican primary. And I'm not even a Democrat -- I'm an independent that detests the modern Republican Party. I was actually planning to vote for McCain back in 2000, and would have voted Perot in 1992 (missed the age requirement by just a smidge). If I've gone fullbore leftist since then, it's more because the Republican Party has swung so far to the right.

Oh, it's not that I doubt that someone would vote for a shitmonger in the other group's primary. I just doubt it would be on a massive enough scale. If given the very real choice to pick John Kasich over Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, how many Democrats would opt for the latter? I've been reading this thread for a good while, and I do recall when some folks were expressing relative optimism at certain Republican candidates way back when. So while voting for shitmongers is a possibility, I'm not sure if it's statistically relevant. Especially given that they'd have the entire opposite party's base to contend with. Point is, you wouldn't reach everyone across the pond, but you could reach some people. And you'd normalize voting for the opposite camp to a certain degree, which might promote similar habits in the actual election. Mix it up a little!

Also a more centrist candidate isn't really better. There is a reason Democrats took one look at Jim Webb and Lincoln Chaffee and moved on.

Yeah, that'd probably be the main issue. You might have both candidates represent a middle-of-the-road choice, each implying a mild shift of policy to fit certain interests, but not too much so as to retain an appeal to the exact middle-of-the-road centrist that doesn't actually matter in an election. It's one of those solutions that would address the current problem (debatably, since having candidates people are not terribly enthused about kind of is the present problem), but likely introduce several others.

[mainiac]

Spite. Yes. Only reason for any sort of protest against the establishment. Obviously.

Interestingly enough that's not what I said.

I would appreciate if someone wants to come along and translate what I've said because that seems to be the only way my points every get across.

Oh, it's not that I doubt that someone would vote for a shitmonger in the other group's primary. I just doubt it would be on a massive enough scale. If given the very real choice to pick John Kasich over Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, how many Democrats would opt for the latter?

1) The democrats could support someone like Chris Christie or the republicans support someone like Lincoln Chaffee.  Their ideology isn't scary and they aren't a formidable opponent.

2) It ignores the whole freaking point of primaries which is advocacy for an agenda.  The democrats wanted to pick a standard bearer for the agenda of liberalism.  They picked a mainstream liberal whom a lot of mainstream liberals admire.  The republicans normally would want to pick a standard bearer for the agenda of conservatism but they screwed up.*  Other then the current primary they pick a conservative standard bearer that a lot of conservatives admire.

The right to form parties is considered essential to democracy because people need to be allowed to support advocacy for agendas they want.  You are suggesting something that makes parties much less about this.  It's "advocacy for what you want... sort of... if the other people agree".


*Either they tried to be too cute with their primaries (Trump didn't get a majority after all) or conservativism as we knew it is gone.  I think it's probably the former because Trump didn't get a majority of the vote and they seem to be doing fine in downballot races where they have better nominees then Jeb Bush.

[Guardian G.I.]

Hillary is quite salty about her ratings.

Knew what it'd be before I even opened the link, haha.

I swear, the woman has no charisma. She's like a screeching harpy. I watched that video with my partner last night and she pointed out that it looked like Hillary was reading a teleprompter with a huge font. I just think she looks like an owl.

On the other side of the barricades, Trump really knows how to work up the crowd and act on stage.
I'd say his skills are actually legendary - he won the primaries by trolling the shit out of opponents, without saying anything concrete about his own policies and political views (until early summer or so). No wonder the imageboards love him.
Even if he loses, he deserves a place near Huey Long in history books as an example of purest American populism.

[Harry Baldman]

1) The democrats could support someone like Chris Christie or the republicans support someone like Lincoln Chaffee.  Their ideology isn't scary and they aren't a formidable opponent.

2) It ignores the whole freaking point of primaries which is advocacy for an agenda.  The democrats wanted to pick a standard bearer for the agenda of liberalism.  They picked a mainstream liberal whom a lot of mainstream liberals admire.  The republicans normally would want to pick a standard bearer for the agenda of conservatism but they screwed up.*  Other then the current primary they pick a conservative standard bearer that a lot of conservatives admire.

The right to form parties is considered essential to democracy because people need to be allowed to support advocacy for agendas they want.  You are suggesting something that makes parties much less about this.  It's "advocacy for what you want... sort of... if the other people agree".


*Either they tried to be too cute with their primaries (Trump didn't get a majority after all) or conservativism as we knew it is gone.  I think it's probably the former because Trump didn't get a majority of the vote and they seem to be doing fine in downballot races where they have better nominees then Jeb Bush.

1) True, they could very well just be inoffensive and useless simultaneously. The milquetoast conundrum's logical extreme.

2) I'd say it's more like frontloading other people's agreement, which is normally saved for the actual election. But then again, that's kind of what the checks and balances system does already, making sure the two parties remain in each other's influence unless one of them fucks up hard, giving them a good incentive to try and do well. You can have an opposition president in power while the coalition retains Congress. And if you make people vote in a way that doesn't actually matter, well, that's just opinion polling, which they do already.

So yeah, probably far too damaging to the concept of a republic to be a practicable scheme in how to trick a Republican into voting Democrat.

[mainiac]

snip

1) James Hacker 2016!

2) It's not an ideal system but I am unaware of any better system in a first past the post system.  Might as well just plan a reform around ditching first past the post.

[Max™]

And I'd probably want a party with something like this as their proposed changes.

I shit you not, as I read that, I grew a long white beard on top of my beard and sprouted a ushanka, I have no idea where it even came from.

[Sergarr]

The ratfucker Zodiac Killer Ted Cruz just endorsed Trump. I guess he got over Trump insulting his parents on Tweeter.

[Frumple]

It's good to see our republican politicians are holding up to the standard of integrity they've been cultivating this campaign cycle, at least.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The ratfucker Zodiac Killer Ted Cruz just endorsed Trump. I guess he got over Trump insulting his parents on Tweeter.

If anyone still doubts that there's a powerful normalization effect in the general election, here you go.

[Baffler]

And I'd probably want a party with something like this as their proposed changes.

I shit you not, as I read that, I grew a long white beard on top of my beard and sprouted a ushanka, I have no idea where it even came from.

Arrangement of blocks intensifies.

The ratfucker Zodiac Killer Ted Cruz just endorsed Trump. I guess he got over Trump insulting his parents on Tweeter.

What happens for Ted Cruz now? Before this election cycle he had a pretty solid position, but his name's been pretty well dragged through the mud lately.

[mainiac]

Nothing happens.  Normalization means that everything was a night in Vegas.