-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT6| Delete your accounts
- Thread starter Spoiled Milk
- Start date
- Status
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
The UK Liberals haven't been comparable to a Libertarian Party since the early 1900s; the whole point of the New Liberal movement and the triumph of figures like David Lloyd George and Herbert Asquith was the acceptance of the idea that a society that most promotes the freedoms of its members is one which provides them with economic security, against the classical Liberal predecessors. Most classical Liberals ended up filtering into the Conservative Party, some under Joseph Chamberlain and then throughout the 1930s in a steady trickle until there were really no classical Liberals left in the Liberal Party by the post-war period. The UK's Libertarian movement is now just a small faction operating within either the Conservatives (i.e., Daniel Hannan) or UKIP (although that's less true since Farage took over).
The FDP are pretty similar; they're not comparable to Libertarians and are ideologically similar to their Liberal Democrat counterparts in the UK. They do have a small Libertarian wing because unlike the UK, the main rightist German party (the CDU) has been less accepting of free-market norms than the Conservatives and what Libertarians there are have found more fortune in smaller parties, but they're no way the main strand of FDP thought.
The FDP are pretty similar; they're not comparable to Libertarians and are ideologically similar to their Liberal Democrat counterparts in the UK. They do have a small Libertarian wing because unlike the UK, the main rightist German party (the CDU) has been less accepting of free-market norms than the Conservatives and what Libertarians there are have found more fortune in smaller parties, but they're no way the main strand of FDP thought.
Lighter people get good looking sentences.
Groveling. Sickening. Tiny rubio.
It would be funny if trump rebuffed some of these endorsements.
"I don't even want Little Marco's endorsement. He can keep it."
benjipwns
Banned
Which is why I didn't list them as one, instead I used them to describe how they formed coalitions with three separate parties not only for elections but governing yet remained their own distinct party. Something impossible in the U.S. and that instead would have metastasized within the two parties.
FDP's desire to remain in a power broker position and inability to adjust to a collapsed SPD taking it down with it and rising Green/Left/Alternative is a good example of what a Libertarian Party that kept in the Kochs in the fold rather than spent all its time trying to out position each other just shy of anarcho-capitalism would look like.
No seats in the national legislature and disintegrating after accomplishing little of its original agenda. Trying to get back its state provided subsidy.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
Crossposting my analysis of Loanghazi.
I think she had a very public plan to Make Burlington Great Again. I think she and her husband have a very sincere respect for the education system and wanted the students to have the best college they could. I think Jane looked very hard for a new location for the college, found the church, and thought, "This it. This is must be the place." I think Jane Sanders then did everyhting in her power to make it happen because this was her dream project.
I think she went to the bank and they told her she would need a very serious capital requirement before they could afford the loan with her. I think she then convinced the church to help pony up some of the money or offer her a loan because it would be a good choice in the long run and it was the Christian thing to do. I think when even that wasn't enough, she closed her eyes and pictured a massive fundraiser all across the small city of Burlington. A real grassroots movement to make Burlington College the pride and joy of the ciy.
So she goes back to the bank and tells them she expects $2 million in future donations. They're skeptical. She's not. They tell her they need to think about it. Jane goes home nervous and tells her husband what happened because as a supportive husband, he's been tuned into the process from the very beginning. Her wife is sad. They are so close to really making a difference.
So I think Sanders makes a call to the bank. I think he assures them, with his full credibility as a United States Senator, that he knows the college, he knows his wife, he knows they will make it work. Because that's how it's always been for the Sanders. It will work out in the end. The difference between people who make it work and people who don't is that the people who make it work really gave it a vigorous effort. It will work out in the end because if other people can do it, so can they.
And so Bernie Sanders closes his eyes, too.
And when they open them again, the college is gone. The bank has taken a massive loss. The church lost $2 million. They only raised 200k in their grassroots movement. Jane is fired by the board. Everything went wrong.
I have never heard Bernie or Jane publicly talk about this. Talk about their mistakes. Own up to it. I have never heard Bernie own up to anything before, to be honest. So that's why this story is important. It's because wishful thinking is irresponsible. It's not because the Sanders are "corrupt", it's because they're incompetent. It's because you can't trust them to get it done. This is about judgment, and they have none.
What's more is Sanders has the same voice problem as Perez but nobody ever cared.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I am... unconvinced that a "realist" libertarian party would look much like the FDP.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Sander doesn't have a thin voice. If anything his voice is too thick! His main speaking problems are that he doesn't know how to stop being loud and he's also Brooklyn as fuuuuuck.
Box of Kittens
Banned
The thing I like about Perez is that he ticks so many boxes. And I do think it's important to appeal to Sanders supporters (not the Bernie or Bust crowd though). The more unified the party can be, the better. Perez does that and can help highlight the contrast between the tickets. Of course, Palin also looked great on paper (from a Republican standpoint), but I trust Clinton's team to vet their potential running mates.
I looked this up in response to a post in an earlier PoliGAF thread, and strangely enough, parties going for four straight actually have a 4-3 record in the US.
Wins:
Madison (1812)
Grant (1872) or Garfield (1880) depending on whether your standard is winning four straight presidential elections, or controlling the presidency for four straight four-year terms
Taft (1908)
FDR (1944)
Losses:
Van Buren (1840)
Hoover (1932)
GHW Bush (1992)
I don't actually think you can read too much into this, as most of these elections had strong factors pointing one way or another. The Federalists were a mess by 1812, the three losers were all saddled with bad economies, FDR was a popular wartime president and the Republicans were still blamed for the Great Depression. Nonetheless I found the results surprising.
I do agree though that "future presidential candidate" is not a particularly important consideration for me. The nominee had better be able to serve as president effectively (one big reason I don't want Sanders), but it's not like there won't be alternatives in 2024.
I looked this up in response to a post in an earlier PoliGAF thread, and strangely enough, parties going for four straight actually have a 4-3 record in the US.
Wins:
Madison (1812)
Grant (1872) or Garfield (1880) depending on whether your standard is winning four straight presidential elections, or controlling the presidency for four straight four-year terms
Taft (1908)
FDR (1944)
Losses:
Van Buren (1840)
Hoover (1932)
GHW Bush (1992)
I don't actually think you can read too much into this, as most of these elections had strong factors pointing one way or another. The Federalists were a mess by 1812, the three losers were all saddled with bad economies, FDR was a popular wartime president and the Republicans were still blamed for the Great Depression. Nonetheless I found the results surprising.
I do agree though that "future presidential candidate" is not a particularly important consideration for me. The nominee had better be able to serve as president effectively (one big reason I don't want Sanders), but it's not like there won't be alternatives in 2024.
nature boy
Member
Wait Trump might flip Oregon?
Say it ain't so.
Say it ain't so.
It ain't so.
Lendghazi
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Most of those are pre-war examples; American politics has changed so radically since then I'm not sure you can use all those in one sample. After you exclude that, you're left with like 4 cases which isn't really enough to draw conclusions. If you suppose that the causal mechanism is people just getting tired of one party and scandals and corruption building up over time, the causal mechanism should be the same across all Western liberal democracies, so you could use a much larger sample that way.
Janeghazi?
TheLaughingStock
Member
I thought you were talking about the authority to seize institutions and break them up rather than prevent a crisis. What you said is mostly true; however, it should be noted Citigroup was highly likely to fail, but other out of control firms just happened to fail a few months earlier not subject to GS. So, you easily could've drawn a clear line between the repeal of GS as the primary cause and a major lock up because Citi failing is a big deal.
IMO there isn't a need to discuss shadow banks since they're more or less the same entity doing business in broad daylight, being hit with fines, signing DPAs/NPAs, receiving federal emergency assistance from the Federal Reserve, etc.
28DollarGhazi.
benjipwns
Banned
I have no reason to believe they would be more successful than having zero national seats and an insignificant amount of members.
1880 is discounted because the 1876 election was won by the Democrats and stolen by the Republicans. (The 1864 election was won by the National Union Party and a lifelong Democrat served almost the entire term.)
1908 shouldn't count because McKinley AND Hobart died back-to-back and Roosevelt was moved into the VP slot to try and get rid of his career because he was despised by the most powerful bloc of the party.
Nobody else can run four straight times like FDR.
That said, it has no bearing on the 2016 or 2020 election. Trump will win 2016 and Gilmore/Benji will win 2020 over Kayne and Trump in a shocking upset.
I can't speak to the first part, although I slightly disagree. For the second part, I think your statement is absolutely false. If Trump is turned up to 11 in the leadup to the election and some of his truly crazy views and shit are out on blast 24/7, I think we will see a significant number of first time or irregular voters turning out to, if nothing else, vote against Trump.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Daniel B·;204983835 said:LGBT Bernie supporters in Long Beach, CA Gay Pride Festival, on why they #FeelTheBern:
Good damage control after what his campaign did this week.
Daniel B·;204983835 said:LGBT Bernie supporters in Long Beach, CA Gay Pride Festival, on why they #FeelTheBern
I can't remember who it was that made that point a few pages back, but what was the exact timeline on state level support for gay marriage? Someone said there was a quote from Clinton supporting it in New York in 2006, while there was an opposing quote in the same year with Sanders not supporting it in Vermont (marriage/civil unions?). Is this true?
Well, she's definitely going to march in one next year if possible. She's said she wants to be the first sitting president to do so, as she was also the first first lady to do it.
Box of Kittens
Banned
I feel like the lesson of Teddy Roosevelt and Andrew Johnson (and Tyler too) is that you should always be careful who you name VP, because as meaningless as the job is, they might become president.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
You're right, I phrased that wrong. I meant to say "mobilizing people who already agree with you", my point is that most voters will belong to "Won't Vote, But Could be Persuaded Republican", "Republican", "Won't Vote, But Could be Persuaded Democrat", and "Democrat", with very, very few belonging to "Would vote Republican/Democrat, but could be persuaded to vote Democrat/Republican". Trump and Clinton are just so ideologically far apart that I really can't see many people being unable to decide between them, the problem for both parties is not going to be competition for the centre-ground, but rather, trying to get "their people" to turn up. You're right some of "their people" will be new voters.
benjipwns
Banned
With Huma? ♥♥♥♥
benjipwns
Banned
I believe in the last thread I made a post where I figured out that becoming VP and having the President die was the best place to be statistically to become President vs. any other office.
He won then.
Petersen did worse than I thought. Perry and Feldman waaay better.
Only one Ron Paul write-in.
Not until he passes 50%. Ballots for the second round of voting are being printed and passed around now.
benjipwns
Banned
I mean that he won in that he'll go over for sure now as they eliminate the candidates.
2008 took six ballots because nobody had more than 25% support on the first ballot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_...Convention#Voting_for_presidential_nomination
Best part is they're still holding a primary in California even though it's a week after the Convention.
This is fantastic in every way.
RastaMentality
Banned
People are honestly gonna think the same of Warren too.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I've been misreading that as "Sue Google" for days; I'd been struggling to work out the link between Google and guns being taken away, had it down to some sort of liberal San Fran elite conspiracy theory.
benjipwns
Banned
Re: Warren, etc. for VP
One thing to remember is that candidates do get turned down.
Hillary's so hated by Democrats for her e-mails and Benghazi and Wall Street speeches and anti-minority laws she passed as First Lady that she might have to be like McGovern and ask literally every elected Democrat until one finally says yes.
And she has to give her acceptance speech at 3AM.
And then it's revealed that one has had electro-shock therapy and she backs them. Before dropping them suddenly for another Kennedy family member. Caroline Kennedy would be ideal, to see if she could break that "you know" record of hers.
One thing to remember is that candidates do get turned down.
Hillary's so hated by Democrats for her e-mails and Benghazi and Wall Street speeches and anti-minority laws she passed as First Lady that she might have to be like McGovern and ask literally every elected Democrat until one finally says yes.
And she has to give her acceptance speech at 3AM.
And then it's revealed that one has had electro-shock therapy and she backs them. Before dropping them suddenly for another Kennedy family member. Caroline Kennedy would be ideal, to see if she could break that "you know" record of hers.
I dunno, Perez seemed pretty good when he guested on Keepin' it 1600. Give that a listen, it might sway you if you're not convinced. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_V0VZL4Cd5I
But I dunno, seems like a tough pick. I would've said Kaine before, but that might be out of play now.
Fuck it, just pick Franken and let him roast Trump all summer/fall.
But I dunno, seems like a tough pick. I would've said Kaine before, but that might be out of play now.
Fuck it, just pick Franken and let him roast Trump all summer/fall.
*snicker*
GregLombardi
Member
No she isn't. What Democrats hate her for these things? All of these things are complete bullshit lines of attack on her that hold basically no weight with anyone with an ounce of understanding of politics over the past 30 years.
excelsiorlef
Member
It's a joke.
That's because she deliberately chose the exact same font as Google to trick your mind.
Compare the capital Gs.
Aaron Strife
Banned
It was me, Clinton was asked if she'd support NY legalizing it and she said yes if that's what the legislature and governor came to pass. I don't think Sanders ever openly campaigned against gay marriage or anything, but he was very weaselly about it during his 2006 campaign and was allegedly pressuring the Vermont legislature not to legalize it because he felt the issue was too divisive.
The thing is that's not dumb politics or anything, gay marriage was still getting shut down in blue states up to 2012. But if you're going to cast yourself as an example of liberal purity and you took such a chickenshit approach to the issue when it came up in your state you don't have much room to talk. Clinton's position at the time (which boils down to "sure, whatever") isn't particularly bold either but it at least indicates a passive support as opposed to deliberate opposition.
LGBT rights is such a nuanced thing and it's so weird to see it boiled down to whether you were ever against gay marriage at any point in your life. It's unfortunate but at the same time Clinton has otherwise been great on gay rights and marriage equality only became a part of the conversation recently. People like to bring up DADT a lot too even though Bill Clinton campaigned on lifting the ban entirely and it was a compromise. Hillary even made opposition to the final policy a part of her first Senate campaign, while she was First Lady. And Bill probably agreed with her.
But the Clintons can never win with some people.
Box of Kittens
Banned
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Trump practicing his Jedi mind tricks, I see. Clinton might be in trouble.
benjipwns
Banned
Working class America.
Sounds just like the kind of smears and "we know what's best for you" language the Corporatewarocracy Establishment is using against Democracy's Last Hope.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked