Support NeoGAF

[Amibguous Cad]

People also need to remember that Nader's entire reason for running was to torpedo the Democratic party. He KNEW he had no chance of winning but he felt betrayed by the Democratics and wanted to punish them.

Well... Congratulations Ralph. Congratulations to all the voters who thought Gore was too "stiff" and "intellectual". Congratulations to all the Democratics and Progressives that stayed home due to blow jobs in the white house. Most of all congratulations to the stupid, and lazy American electorate. We got exactly the kind of government we deserved the next 8 years and I'll never forgive us for it.

Democrats aren't entitled to every left-of-center vote in the electorate, and the support of the extremes isn't a given, for either party.

The contempt the centrist democrats have for their left wing is palpable. Bill passed NAFTA, passed DADT, passed welfare reform. You think that might piss off some of your base? If you tack to the center, of course you're going to have a relatively vigorous third party challenger. It's the only way the fringes have of effecting mainstream political outcomes.

A Democratic party worth its salt would have tried to figure out how to bring the Naderities back into the fold for 2004. Instead they decided to mock them for four straight yerars. that's not a way to build a winning coalition.

In the modern day, I won't pretend that there aren't substantitive disagreements between the parties. The Democrats are better than the Republicans at Civil Rights and the expansion of the welfare state, and they have the noted virtue of not nearly precipitating a constitutional crisis in order to get their agenda through, as the Republicans did.

Still, the Snowden-era revelations occurred on Obama's watch. He's done nothing to curtail the expansions of the national security state under Bush, is a full-throated supporter of the drone program, and involved us in another foreign adventure in Libya. He assassinated the 16-year old son of a terrorist for no other crime than his family ties, for christ's sake. Clinton promises to do more of the same. And the big lesson of the past fifty years of electoral politics is that interest groups that refuse to hold their party accountable for not serving their interests get ignored. Clinton voted for the Iraq war. If she doesn't face any consequences for that decision, what incentive does a future politican have for not supporting every bit of imperialism the American people can muster enthusiasm for?

The democrats have been content to pocket the votes and the fusillades of the3 dovish left while doing absolutely nothing to advance their interests once in office. It's time to hold them accountable for it.

 

[kirblar]

That sure would be a nice thing, wouldn't it?

Unfortunately, it will never be the case under capitalism that I will not have to be concerned with the benefit of the workers. Of which I am one. So I have a particular interest.

You make the mistake in thinking these are two, separate, immutable entities. They are not. Businesses will rise. Businesses will fail. Workers will strike out on their own, business owners will fail and have to start working for somebody else.

Government is the exception. It's going to be there no matter what.

The contempt the centrist democrats have for their left wing is palpable.

Because their economics were bad. It's as simple as that- many left-wing ideas simply did not work and to get things that actually worked you had to discard many of them, no matter how "just and correct" they may feel. We're now seeing the inverse pendulum swing in Kansas with this wave of idiotic GOP concepts.

 

[collige]

Okay, then when Donald Trump wins the presidency because you 'wanted to do the right thing'... Was it worth it?

Yes. If Donald Trump won the popular vote or won with whatever hypothetical ranked voting system we're discussing here then he absolutely deserves the presidency. Supporting a brokene electoral system because you're winning is not a valid solution. That shit runs both ways.

 

[Valhelm]

If the Democrats lose this one, they're going to move even further to the right to prevent another loss.

Abstaining in 2016 isn't going to convince Hillary Clinton to fight the drone program.

Yes. If Donald Trump won the popular vote or won with whatever hypothetical ranked voting system we're discussing here then he absolutely deserves the presidency. Supporting a brokene electoral system because you're winning is not a valid solution. That shit runs both ways.

Moral qualms about corruption within our electoral process take a distant back seat to moral qualms about electing a quasi-fascist. Donald Trump should never be president, and it's not a bad thing if he loses "unfairly".

 

[Maxim726X]

Yes. If Donald Trump won the popular vote or won with whatever hypothetical ranked voting system we're discussing here then he absolutely deserves the presidency. Supporting a brokene electoral system because you're winning is not a valid solution. That shit runs both ways.

Well, are we championing a revised election system in your example, or are we using the current model?

And no, if there are 3 candidates, the one that doesn't splinter will will every time. That's exactly why there are only 2.

 

[sphagnum]

You make the mistake in thinking these are two, separate, immutable entities. They are not. Businesses will rise. Businesses will fail. Workers will strike out on their own, business owners will fail and have to start working for somebody else.

Government is the exception. It's going to be there no matter what.

That has basically nothing to do with my concern, but ok. If some business owner failed and had to join the proletariat, I'd support his rights to be part of a democratic organization as well.

The fact that businesses can fall apart and get replaced by other businesses does not somehow mean industry should not be democratic.

 

[B4s5C]

If the Democrats lose this one, they're going to move even further to the right to prevent another loss.

Abstaining in 2016 isn't going to convince Hillary Clinton to fight the drone program.



Moral qualms about corruption within our electoral process take a distant back seat to moral qualms about electing a quasi-fascist. Donald Drumpf should never be president, and it's not a bad thing if he loses "unfairly".

Winning should be fair and representative of the votes of the people.

Advocating for a broken democratic system because it gives you the result you want is, kind of bad.

Edit: Taken from the Democrat's website:

We continue to work to defeat any legislative or political effort that erodes the most fundamental of American rights—the right to vote.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Winning should be fair and representative of the votes of the people.

Advocating for a broken democratic system because it gives you the result you want is, kind of bad.

Humans work in their own self-interest. Why should a Democrat in a D+30 district advocate for voting reform that'll make it easier for a more left candidate than him actually have a chance to win in an IRV scenario?

 

[Valhelm]

Winning should be fair and representative of the votes of the people.

Advocating for a broken democratic system because it gives you the result you want is, kind of bad.

A pretty common liberal attitude is that the freedom or fairness of a political system is more important than its result, but I'm not sure if I agree with that. There's something to be said about institutional security, but if an electoral system is empowering fascists, should it really be allowed to continue?

Rigging elections, for instance, is ethically repugnant. But political tampering in 1932 Germany would have prevented the Nazi party from seizing control.

 

[collige]

First, solve the gerrymandering problem of redistricting

whynotboth.png It's worth noting that Democrats hold up this issue as well, which ties in with the whole attitude of "it's okay when we're winning" that's been popping up in this thread.

Well, are we championing a revised election system in your example, or are we using the current model?

And no, if there are 3 candidates, the one that doesn't splinter will will every time. That's exactly why there are only 2.

Revised. Run off systems would prevent the situation you're describing.

Humans work in their own self-interest. Why should a Democrat in a D+30 district advocate for voting reform that'll make it easier for a more left candidate than him actually have a chance to win in an IRV scenario?

Is this an explanation or an excuse?

 

[Maxim726X]

whynotboth.png It's worth noting that Democrats hold up this issue as well, which ties in with the whole attitude of "it's okay when we're winning" that's been popping up in this thread.



Revised. Run off systems would prevent the situation you're describing.

Okay, I'm down with that.

I'd love to see that, too... But let's be realistic here- The party in control is going to be in no rush to implement such changes. That sucks, but that's the way it is.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Electoral reform to eliminate the 2 party system isn't even wortg tapking about and it's definitely not worth risking a Trump presidency over.

Pretty sure it would require a constitutional amendment and the only people for it can't even get Bernie Sanders the Democratic nomination.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Okay, I'm down with that.

I'd love to see that, too... But let's be realistic here- The party in control is going to be in no rush to implement such changes. That sucks, but that's the way it is.

Well, more than that, in Republican state, Democrat's will argue against it, saying it'll lead to even more extreme Republican's in power since they'll be able to ally with crazy libertarians and Christian extremists, Republican's will argue against it in Democratic state saying it'll lead to socialists holding the balance of power, swing states will argue it'll mean less attention and funding for those states, and rural states will argue it'll just mean candidates will just try to get the votes in urban areas and ignore 'real America.'

 

[B4s5C]

A pretty common liberal attitude is that the freedom or fairness of a political system is more important than its result, but I'm not sure if I agree with that. There's something to be said about institutional security, but if an electoral system is empowering fascists, should it really be allowed to continue?

Rigging elections, for instance, is ethically repugnant. But political tampering in 1932 Germany would have prevented the Nazi party from seizing control.

It sounds like an episode of Star Trek.

But really, people have to make mistakes and they learn from those mistakes. I like to think that we as a country are better than to have to rely on tampering to win an election against a fascist. If people are voting for him, that would seem to indicate that something has gone majorly wrong.

Also, who's prerogative is it to decide when to tamper? I believe a Republican may feel that tampering is okay because the Socialist Clinton or whatever demonization of the other's candidate has occurred and thus, they feel obligated to work the system in their favor.

I don't know, but it is something to think about.

Electoral reform to eliminate the 2 party system isn't even wortg tapking about and it's definitely not worth risking a Drumpf presidency over.

Pretty sure it would require a constitutional amendment and the only people for it can't even get Bernie Sanders the Democratic nomination.

I'm sorry but what?

Why even bring up Bernie Sanders when Maxim726X linked a site detailing electoral form in the removal of the electoral college earlier in the thread. This debate has been going on far longer than a year and more people agree with it than just Bernie Sanders supporters. What you are doing is attaching it to a group that has nothing to do with it.

 

[titiklabingapat]

Winning should be fair and representative of the votes of the people.

Advocating for a broken democratic system because it gives you the result you want is, kind of bad.

Edit: Taken from the Democrat's website:

Last time we did this, we had 8 years of Bush. Fuck that.

 

[kirblar]

A pretty common liberal attitude is that the freedom or fairness of a political system is more important than its result, but I'm not sure if I agree with that. There's something to be said about institutional security, but if an electoral system is empowering fascists, should it really be allowed to continue?

Rigging elections, for instance, is ethically repugnant. But political tampering in 1932 Germany would have prevented the Nazi party from seizing control.

Singapore's dictatorship is largely viewed as a huge net positive over the past 30+ years.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

It sounds like an episode of Star Trek.

It WAS an episode of Battlestar Galactica.

 

[Maxim726X]

Well, more than that, in Republican state, Democrat's will argue against it, saying it'll lead to even more extreme Republican's in power since they'll be able to ally with crazy libertarians and Christian extremists, Republican's will argue against it in Democratic state saying it'll lead to socialists holding the balance of power, swing states will argue it'll mean less attention and funding for those states, and rural states will argue it'll just mean candidates will just try to get the votes in urban areas and ignore 'real America.'

So... Not much different from today?

Sadly, I'm only half-kidding.

 

[B4s5C]

Last time we did this, we had 8 years of Bush. Fuck that.

Bush got into office because of the Electoral College and a few thousand votes from Florida. Despite Gore winning the nation-wide popular vote.

It WAS an episode of Battlestar Galactica.

I will have to check it out, do you remember which episode it was?

 

[Balphon]

It WAS an episode of Battlestar Galactica.

I'm pretty sure I'd take Baltar over Trump.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Who gives a shit? In the scheme of things that is probably the 400th most important thing that led to Gore's loss. And frankly if you can't spare 500 votes to a third party in an election for President of the US, that's not on the third party, that's on you. "Deez Nuts" got exponentially more votes than that.

Nader pulled down 4% in New Hampshire. That's a lot more than Deez Nuts got.

Spoiler

I think your conversations would go better for you if you didn't tell posters "nobody cares what you think" and "who gives a shit." You do you and all that, but it might be an area of growth you could focus on.

 

[Valhelm]

Singapore's dictatorship is largely viewed as a huge net positive over the past 30+ years.

Yeah, dictatorships can absolutely be helpful. I think they're ethically wrong, but I'd rather live in an ethical society formed through trickery than a fascist society created through free democracy.

 

[Macam]

If the Democrats lose this one, they're going to move even further to the right to prevent another loss.

Not necessarily. It depends which voter segment they wish to pursue to make up the loss, and that's going to depend on how things pan out. That's more than a little premature to suggest. The Jim Webb coalition isn't exactly a hotbed of eager, potential Democratic voters.

Abstaining in 2016 isn't going to convince Hillary Clinton to fight the drone program.

Nor will voting for her. She ain't gonna give that up, period.

 

[shintoki]

Singapore's dictatorship is largely viewed as a huge net positive over the past 30+ years.

Of course a dictatorship or monarchy will have far more tremendous effects than a democracy. The entire country is under the rule of one person and it gets rid of a lot of the inefficiencies of the government structure.

The catch is, it is dependent on one man and is far easier for corrupt. When you get a good ruler, its great. When you get a bad one... look at most of these South American, African, Mideastern nations.

 

[hawk2025]

What to do after losing an election:


- Move closer to the center, who appear to be rational strategic voters, and in turn nevertheless still capture the strategic voters of the rational left. Lose "moral redline" left votes.

- Move even more to the left, which are currently placing arbitrary moral redlines and are historically completely unreliable voters. Lose the whole center.




What's more likely?

If you think the Democrats losing will move them more to the left, I don't know what to say. But you can probably write an award-winning political science paper on it if you can figure that one out.

 

[pigeon]

Not necessarily. It depends which voter segment they wish to pursue to make up the loss, and that's going to depend on how things pan out. That's more than a little premature to suggest. The Jim Webb coalition isn't exactly a hotbed of eager, potential Democratic voters.

Whether or not you believe in the median voter theorem, I think it's pretty clear that the Democratic Party does. Whenever an American party loses in a situation it feels it should win the pressure is always to moderate, never to become more extreme, because the goal is to capture voters that voted for the other party, not people who didn't vote or voted third party. Among other things, obviously, flipping a voter that voted for the other side is actually twice as good.

 

[Shihon]

Why is it that anywhere I go I hear Bernie supporters talking about the independent vote and using it like a hostage situation? Do they realize not all independents are against Hillary and a known fact that Obama won his election despite losing the independent vote.

But that's not the best part,they are talking about getting rid of super delegates and making all primaries open.The purpose of a nominating process should be for members of that party to decide who is the best candidate to represent that party’s platform, values.Allowing independents and members of other parties to influence this selection make the process ripe for sabotage (hence the need for super delegates)

If independents want to influence the Democratic or any other party nominating process, they can join that party. You can still influence who gets elected once November rolls around.

Being independent means you aren’t tying yourself to any ''club.” But this also means you don’t get the benefits from belonging to that “club” either. You can’t have it both ways.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Why is it that anywhere I go I hear Bernie supporters talking about the independent vote and using it like a hostage situation? Do they realize not all independents are against Hillary and a known fact that Obama won his election despite the losing the independent vote.

But that's not the best part,they are talking about getting rid of super delegates and making all primaries open.The purpose of a nominating process should be for members of that party to decide who is the best candidate to represent that party’s platform, values.Allowing independents and members of other parties to influence this selection make the process ripe for sabotage (hence the need for super delegates)

If independents want to influence the Democratic or any other party nominating process, they can join that party. You can still influence who gets elected once November rolls around.

Being independent means you aren’t tying yourself to any ''club.” But this also means you don’t get the benefits from belonging to that “club” either. You can’t have it both ways.

#notallindependents

Independent vote in America is a joke. As you said, Romney won it in 2012. You know who else won it? Kerry in 2004 while losing by a similar margin. Presidential politics is all about base turnout, luckily Hillary has pretty good approval within the party.

 

[DrForester]

I'm pretty sure I'd take Baltar over Trump.

What's Trump's position on Fat-Apollo? Because it might be worth having Trump to avoid that.

I will have to check it out, do you remember which episode it was?

End of Season 2.

 

[B-Dubs]

#notallindependents

Independent vote in America is a joke. As you said, Romney won it in 2012. You know who else won it? Kerry in 2004 while losing by a similar margin. Presidential politics is all about base turnout, luckily Hillary has pretty good approval within the party.

A lot of Republicans went independent after Bush, which is why Romney carried that vote.

 

[Monocle]

1. He isn't just shitting on the democratic party. He's shitting on the idea of globalization as a force for good. Nothing is going to stop the exportation of manufacturing jobs, but instead of being honest about this he's demonizing NAFTA. In the process calling for isolationism that would degrade the standard of living in those same rust belt towns while causing significant harm to the economies of developing nations finally climbing out of poverty thanks to U.S. trade deals. It is reductionist and either dishonest or deluded, and it has done and will continue to do substantial damage to U.S. politics in general.

2. Why does the democratic party deserve to be shit on? Because it has over the last thirty years shifted to one that paid lip service to minorities and progressive ideas to one that actually pursues them, if in a pragmatic and cautious fashion? It isn't perfect but it is so obviously better than all of the alternatives that targeting it strikes me as tearing down your friend because he's less likely to fight back than your enemy.

3. What fundamental reforms? The kind that let a black first term senator from Illinois upset Hillary Clinton in 2008? The Democratic party runs the most equitable selection process in the U.S. today. It could improve but it is head and shoulders above the rest.


In Nevada we had someone pick up a chair and get ready to throw it at the stage before others had to restrain him. The next step in the situation is someone actually throwing a chair an hitting someone. Overt violence. That is your threshold for criticism. When his campaign selected supporters (that's what delegates are) respond to him losing with physical violence you'll then concede that maybe he's let it go to far? Great. Nice to know where you draw the line. No blood no foul apparently.


1. The Democratic party let Sanders run in their primary for his current Senate seat, then let him decline the nomination, blocking and D's from running against him, then helped fund his campaign. They've welcomed him into their caucus both in the House and in the Senate. He has always been given preferential status within their caucus in terms of seniority and committee assignments. But yeah, they've never liked or wanted him at all.

2. His platform is their goddamn platform. Bernie Sanders didn't dream up universal healthcare or affordable college. Dems have been pushing for those causes since FDR was in office. The difference is that Sanders would sacrifice universal government funded private healthcare in pursuit of true single payer healthcare while people like Hillary Clinton just care about the outcome. That's where he finds friction with the democratic party. They agree on where progress needs to be made nearly across the board, the only difference is that the party will take ANY progress while Sanders will only take HIS progress and fuck anything else.

3. They sure did work hard to anoint Clinton in 2008, right? Come on with this chosen one crap. Everyone else got out of the race because they knew Clinton was going to be nearly impossible to beat because her infrastructure was in place form '08, her support base was in place from '08, and the sentiment for radical change within the core of the party didn't exist after 7 generally productive years of Obama in the White House. Sanders has ran better than anticipated largely because Clinton and the party have handled him with kid gloves and given him every concession he wanted along the way.

He's broken FEC donation rules every month this year and a member of his campaign used an exploit in the party's server system to download private data but somehow he's the victim. Seriously now, how do you reconcile those facts with the narrative you're selling?


Like what? The only real think the DNC could do to improve it's primary process at this point while still being a political party and not some turnstile for independent fancy is getting rid of caucuses and moving entirely to primaries. But then Sanders benefited greatly from the caucus systems and had it all been primaries he would have been relegated as a non-viable candidate after the first Super Tuesday.

Ridiculously on point.

 

[Macam]

Whether or not you believe in the median voter theorem, I think it's pretty clear that the Democratic Party does. Whenever an American party loses in a situation it feels it should win the pressure is always to moderate, never to become more extreme, because the goal is to capture voters that voted for the other party, not people who didn't vote or voted third party. Among other things, obviously, flipping a voter that voted for the other side is actually twice as good.

That's good and well, but it's still premature to conclusively make the assertion (which was my point). A lot can happen in four years, and we'll find out closer to then than this year certainly.

 

[collige]

But that's not the best part,they are talking about getting rid of super delegates and making all primaries open.The purpose of a nominating process should be for members of that party to decide who is the best candidate to represent that party’s platform, values.Allowing independents and members of other parties to influence this selection make the process ripe for sabotage (hence the need for super delegates)

This is already accomplished much more reliably by closed primaries though.

 

[Suikoguy]

What do you mean when you say electoral reform? Unless you implement a complete government change to something more parliamentary, a first past the post system with two dominate parties makes the most sense. Ask Canadians how they like Harper or how the UK likes the torries.

The most probable route for a total government changeover like that would be having 2/3rds of the states call a convention.

And even under amazing favorability you would still need to convince some of these red states to join.

http://www.270towin.com/maps/58Bbb

But it would be a method to both reform campaign finance and switch to a rank order voting system.

 

[pigeon]

That's good and well, but it's still premature to conclusively make the assertion (which was my point). A lot can happen in four years, and we'll find out closer to then than this year certainly.

My point is that it is pretty reasonable to make the assertion based on, like, historical trends. That is what actually happens! If you want to make the contrary argument, that's fine, but I would say the burden of proof is much more on you.

 

[hawk2025]

The decision of someone flirting with abstaining to shift the platform doesn't happen in four years -- it happens now.

"Let's see in four years" is a nonstarter. Political theory and history says you are wrong. I'm willing to be incisive on this instead of this limpwristed "anything can happen" stuff.

 

[Macam]

My point is that it is pretty reasonable to make the assertion based on, like, historical trends. That is what actually happens! If you want to make the contrary argument, that's fine, but I would say the burden of proof is much more on you.

When I get that time machine up and running, I'll ping you.

The decision of someone flirting with abstaining to shift the platform doesn't happen in four years -- it happens now.

"Let's see in four years" is a nonstarter. Political theory and history says you are wrong. I'm willing to be incisive on this instead of this limpwristed "anything can happen" stuff.

Who's flirting with abstaining? My historical trends say I vote every election, midterms, dog catcher and all.

 

[hawk2025]

I was talking to you, but not about you.

The point remains -- "anything can happen" is not a particularly useful stance.

 

[shinra-bansho]

You make a few good points in the rest of your post, but I want to call this part out as a piece of a theme that I've seen from your previous posts, like this one, which had some real pie-in-the-sky thinking.

Globalization is a force for good in developing nations, economically, there's no doubt. However, globalization has had a harmful effect in American manufacturing, which cannot compete with lower costs due to cheaper labor and looser regulations overseas. Our manufacturing sector losses have way outpaced those of other developed countries, even. You're talking about good middle-class jobs in many cases lost, replaced by low-paying service sector jobs or no jobs at all. We've lost over 5 million manufacturing jobs in the last decade and a half. Meanwhile, we subsidize these companies who have outsourced these jobs and destroyed communities across the nation.

So when you make a blanket statement like, "globalization is a force for good", I've got to call shenanigans. I'm not saying that the effect of globalization and trade agreements are all bad, but it's a mixed-bag at best, and for the average American, it's had a fairly negative impact. And I expect Trump to do better in the Rust Belt states than expected for this reason.

This is from a few pages ago and has probably been responded to.

But setting aside that US manufacturing was dying a slow death already prior to the 90s due to technological forces... The response to the negative impacts of globalization on select industries and in select areas cannot be protectionism.

What is lacking is proper trade adjustment support. That is the grand failing. Not the entering of trade agreements that lead to an overall greater global prosperity and standard of living.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

When I look at that graph, my predominant thought is "The little man really needs to show the fuck up in the midterms."

People need to stop acting like the President is a Godking. Trump and Sanders are doing well because they are offering solutions that require the lowest amount of sacrifice/effort from their electorate. They are populists.

I take back my comment about Sanders and Trump. I don't know why they're doing so well or why Trump is going all the way while Crazy Bernie came up well short.

Anyway, people can show up to vote midterms, this term, or that term. The trend and #s for the Lesser Depression don't lie. You need better ideas if you want a better life otherwise you're going to be a loser while many rich whites are going to just win, win, win. A lot of votes are virtually meaningless as the outcomes suggest a mixed bag and probably a net negative overall. That's why many of y'all should vote Trump because you'll always be winning one way or another if you're not in our club. I'm going to be voting for Crooked Hillary because I can afford to gamble with the populist mob and because she's the first woman.

Also, Obama talks about GOP obstruction and how it stopped him from doing a, b, and c...then turns around in the same breath touting his "record" on job creation plus x, y, z. Did the GOP obstruct POTUS from hiring a failure like Timothy Geithner, stop his big time contributions from Wall St., or keep his admin from prosecuting 2700+ small-time fraudsters following the financial crisis? GOP is not Godking either.

Pres. Obama is a complete joke with his charade rofl and should be ashamed. Moreover, he never gives the GOP credit for obstructing his grand bargain proposal which would've virtually ensured he was a 1 term POTUS. They literally helped saved him from his corrupt self in a huggggge way. A personal thank you letter to whistleblowers and also to the GOP would be nice before leaving office.

 

[Suikoguy]

I take back my comment about Sanders and Trump. I don't know why they're doing so well or why Trump is going all the way while Crazy Bernie came up well short.

Anyway, people can show up to vote midterms, this term, or that term. The trend and #s for the Lesser Depression don't lie. You need better ideas if you want a better life otherwise you're going to be a loser while many rich whites are going to just win, win, win. A lot of votes are virtually meaningless as the outcomes suggest a mixed bag and probably a net negative overall. That's why many of y'all should vote Trump because you'll always be winning one way or another if you're not in our club. I'm going to be voting for Crooked Hillary because I can afford to gamble with the populist mob and because she's the first woman.

Also, Obama talks about GOP obstruction and how it stopped him from doing a, b, and c...then turns around in the same breath touting his "record" on job creation plus x, y, z. Did the GOP obstruct POTUS from hiring a failure like Timothy Geithner, stop his big time contributions from Wall St., or keep his admin from prosecuting 2700+ small-time fraudsters following the financial crisis? GOP is not Godking either.

Pres. Obama is a complete joke with his charade rofl and should be ashamed. Moreover, he never gives the GOP credit for obstructing his grand bargain proposal which would've virtually ensured he was a 1 term POTUS. They literally helped saved him from his corrupt self in a huggggge way. A personal thank you letter to whistleblowers and also to the GOP would be nice before leaving office.

You.. errr.. wat?

 

[QuantumZebra]

i would support hillary with my life

she is the chosen one

may our god-queen reign eternal

 

[googleplex]

I take back my comment about Sanders and Trump. I don't know why they're doing so well or why Trump is going all the way while Crazy Bernie came up well short.

Anyway, people can show up to vote midterms, this term, or that term. The trend and #s for the Lesser Depression don't lie. You need better ideas if you want a better life otherwise you're going to be a loser while many rich whites are going to just win, win, win. A lot of votes are virtually meaningless as the outcomes suggest a mixed bag and probably a net negative overall. That's why many of y'all should vote Trump because you'll always be winning one way or another if you're not in our club. I'm going to be voting for Crooked Hillary because I can afford to gamble with the populist mob and because she's the first woman.

Also, Obama talks about GOP obstruction and how it stopped him from doing a, b, and c...then turns around in the same breath touting his "record" on job creation plus x, y, z. Did the GOP obstruct POTUS from hiring a failure like Timothy Geithner, stop his big time contributions from Wall St., or keep his admin from prosecuting 2700+ small-time fraudsters following the financial crisis? GOP is not Godking either.

Pres. Obama is a complete joke with his charade rofl and should be ashamed. Moreover, he never gives the GOP credit for obstructing his grand bargain proposal which would've virtually ensured he was a 1 term POTUS. They literally helped saved him from his corrupt self in a huggggge way. A personal thank you letter to whistleblowers and also to the GOP would be nice before leaving office.

This Literally one of the most insane and detached from any objective reality post I've ever read here on Gaf.

 

[kess]

A pretty common liberal attitude is that the freedom or fairness of a political system is more important than its result, but I'm not sure if I agree with that. There's something to be said about institutional security, but if an electoral system is empowering fascists, should it really be allowed to continue?

Rigging elections, for instance, is ethically repugnant. But political tampering in 1932 Germany would have prevented the Nazi party from seizing control.

Weimar Germany is kind of a hazy example because a lot of the country was being run through Article 48 and the usurpation of the elected Prussian state government directly contributed to Hermann Göring's takeover of the Prussian interior ministry. The biggest problem with most dictatorships is how they end, and who the power ends up with. Other ethical questions arise when considering taxation and administration of justice, which is not by "consent of the people" in the democratic sense -- this is probably why most modern dictatorships exult the state and trend towards fascism.

 

[QuantumZebra]

I take back my comment about Sanders and Trump. I don't know why they're doing so well or why Trump is going all the way while Crazy Bernie came up well short.

Anyway, people can show up to vote midterms, this term, or that term. The trend and #s for the Lesser Depression don't lie. You need better ideas if you want a better life otherwise you're going to be a loser while many rich whites are going to just win, win, win. A lot of votes are virtually meaningless as the outcomes suggest a mixed bag and probably a net negative overall. That's why many of y'all should vote Trump because you'll always be winning one way or another if you're not in our club. I'm going to be voting for Crooked Hillary because I can afford to gamble with the populist mob and because she's the first woman.

Also, Obama talks about GOP obstruction and how it stopped him from doing a, b, and c...then turns around in the same breath touting his "record" on job creation plus x, y, z. Did the GOP obstruct POTUS from hiring a failure like Timothy Geithner, stop his big time contributions from Wall St., or keep his admin from prosecuting 2700+ small-time fraudsters following the financial crisis? GOP is not Godking either.

Pres. Obama is a complete joke with his charade rofl and should be ashamed. Moreover, he never gives the GOP credit for obstructing his grand bargain proposal which would've virtually ensured he was a 1 term POTUS. They literally helped saved him from his corrupt self in a huggggge way. A personal thank you letter to whistleblowers and also to the GOP would be nice before leaving office.

thatsbait.gif

Your username is classic though