PoliGAF 2016 |OT6| Delete your accounts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rule number one of party platform:

1. West is not permitted to speak, and when Obama is in the city he will resticted to being out of the city limits with no cell service.
 
I'm not saying there aren't obvious differences. A multi-party coalition requires greater management.

It gives the more fringe a viable alternative for influence.

But the public does not take kindly to the tail wagging the dog.
Coalition bust-ups don't do anything good for the minor parties.
The government agenda will be dictated by the ruling party.

And for most of the electorate, it still boils down to a choice between the large left-of-centre party and the large right-of-centre party.
 
shinra-bansho said:
I'm not saying there aren't obvious differences. A multi-party coalition requires greater management.

It gives the more fringe a viable alternative for influence.

But the public does not take kindly to the tail wagging the dog.
Coalition bust-ups don't do anything good for the minor parties.
The government agenda will be dictated by the ruling party.

And for most of the electorate, it still boils down to a choice between the large left-of-centre party and the large right-of-centre party.
Click to expand...

Yeah, especially the bolded. Although i'd say the parties are further apart than they have been in a long time. Mostly in one direction.
 
shinra-bansho said:
I'm not saying there aren't obvious differences. A multi-party coalition requires greater management.

It gives the more fringe a viable alternative for influence.

But the public does not take kindly to the tail wagging the dog.
Click to expand...

I think you'd have to look very hard to find many if any examples of this in modern developed democracies.

Coalition bust-ups don't do anything good for the minor parties.
Click to expand...

Largely true, but beside the point.

The government agenda will be dictated by the ruling party.
Click to expand...

I think you meant "government agenda will be dictated by the largest party in government", or this doesn't make much sense (or is just false). If I'm correct in my reinterpretation, a) you're exaggerating, they can't dictate terms to partners, and b) while they have the larger share of control over the agenda... that's fine. I mean, they were more popular than their partners. Consensual democracy doesn't mean everyone has equal input, it means they have equal input in proportion to their votes.

And for most of the electorate, it still boils down to a choice between the large left-of-centre party and the large right-of-centre party.
Click to expand...

If most of the electorate wants to vote for either of those parties, sure, but why is this is a sufficient reason not to incorporate a choice for more people?
 
On voting day in MA, Bill was at the library right down the street unannounced (no doubt committing high fraud.) I'm still kicking myself that I wasn't there at the time.
 
I met him very briefly a few years back, he came down to the union for Chelsea's graduation in 2014. Met John McCain as well in 2012 when he gave a speech at the union - he's really, really short in real life, kind of threw me. I think that's my complete list of US presidential candidates/presidents.
 
adam387 said:
Me too.

Supposedly, I did when I was like 5, but....I don't remember. It was at some event my dad took me to. I don't remember it.
Click to expand...

Met him about a month ago at the Advertising Hall of Fame Awards, he was there to induct a friend. I got to chat with him for a few minutes and grab a selfie. Definitely getting older, but super nice.
 
bodyofanamerican said:
Met him about a month ago at the Advertising Hall of Fame Awards, he was there to induct a friend. I got to chat with him for a few minutes and grab a selfie. Definitely getting older, but super nice.
Click to expand...

We met him at a rope line after an event or something.

The only politician I actually have had my picture taken with is Lawton Chiles, when he was governor of Florida. I was on the cover of some citrus magazine or something, and he was photographed with me.

I didn't get a picture with queen in 2008. :( SAD.
 
Crab said:
Not sure what you're saying? Are you just pointing out this did happen? I mean, Iran was dissuaded in this case but I don't think Waltz was wrong about that point in general; he was writing prior to the change in Iran's domestic politics which I think had more to do with it than US sanctions and the like - Iran went from wanting it to not wanting it partially independently of US actions. Regardless, it isn't the main point of his article, which is about how nuclear weapons can be a positive net good.
Click to expand...

You are correct, I am saying the counterexample undermines his argument completely. At least, I assume the main point of an article entitled "Why Iran Should Get the Bomb" is about why Iran should get the bomb, not why X should get the Bomb where X is not Iran.
 
Iolo said:
You are correct, I am saying the counterexample undermines his argument completely. At least, I assume the main point of an article entitled "Why Iran Should Get the Bomb" is about why Iran should get the bomb, not why X should get the Bomb where X is not Iran.
Click to expand...

Firstly, I don't think that particular argument is even wrong. To quote:

But this outcome is unlikely: the historical record indicates that a country bent on acquiring nuclear weapons can rarely be dissuaded from doing so.
Click to expand...

And this remains true. What changed was not really so much that Iran was dissuaded by external pressures, but Iran stopped being bent on acquiring nuclear weapons because of domestic changes.

But secondly, even if it was, it is a side point at best. The main point of his article is about how Iran coming to possess nuclear weapons would be good for stability in the Middle East, and that would be true (given his other arguments) regardless of whether Iran can be dissuaded or not.
 
whyamihere said:
Nope, that's not how this works!
Click to expand...

There is no "how this works". Sanders has something Clinton wants, Clinton has something Sanders wants. What works is whatever they can end up agreeing on, and Sanders has every right to try and get the best bargain he can.
 
Crab said:
There is no "how this works". Sanders has something Clinton wants, Clinton has something Sanders wants. What works is whatever they can end up agreeing on, and Sanders has every right to try and get the best bargain he can.
Click to expand...

No, there is how this works. You don't lose and then try to stamp your feet and demand the farm in the face of fascism in America.
 
Crab said:
There is no "how this works". Sanders has something Clinton wants, Clinton has something Sanders wants. What works is whatever they can end up agreeing on, and Sanders has every right to try and get the best bargain he can.
Click to expand...

No. He lost. He has no right to demand this. He is officially a joke.
 
Seeing as how the cabinet comes out later after election, Hillary should just say whatever and move on.

Not like Bernie can hold her to her word. And it's not like they'll be consequences.

Just say he can have input.
 
B-Dubs said:
The leather works, she needs to wear it more often.
Click to expand...

Oh my god I never saw that before...

I dig it. I'd never wear leather outside though, I already look gay that's just overdoing it

leather.jpg
Click to expand...
 
whyamihere said:
?????????
Click to expand...

tumblr_inline_ncg0qaLjWE1qhg0kw.gif


Crab said:
There is no "how this works". Sanders has something Clinton wants, Clinton has something Sanders wants. What works is whatever they can end up agreeing on, and Sanders has every right to try and get the best bargain he can.
Click to expand...

Oh come on, Crab. Once in a while it's okay to admit Bernie does shit no other candidates have historically done or feel entitled to. He has no right to have any say in who she picks for her cabinet.
 
Black Mamba said:
Seeing as how the cabinet comes out later after election, Hillary should just say whatever and move on.

Not like Bernie can hold her to her word. And it's not like they'll be consequences.

Just say he can have input.
Click to expand...

I think this is the most likely outcome, sadly.
 
I'm looking for the monty python black knight spoof with hillary and bernie which was somewhere in these threads.

Does anyone have it on hand?
 
adam387 said:
Oh come on, Crab. Once in a while it's okay to admit Bernie does shit no other candidates have historically done or feel entitled to. He has no right to have any say in who she picks for her cabinet.
Click to expand...

That's not actually true, Jesse Jackson demanded influence over Dukakis' cabinet. I mean, obviously that didn't come to anything, but it has happened before.
 
Crab said:
That's not actually true, Jesse Jackson demanded influence over Dukakis' cabinet. I mean, obviously that didn't come to anything, but it has happened before.
Click to expand...

And that's as asinine as this. It's okay to admit Bernie is wrong on something once in a while! I promise. I do it with Queen from time to time. It's all good brah.
 
Crab said:
There is no "how this works". Sanders has something Clinton wants, Clinton has something Sanders wants. What works is whatever they can end up agreeing on, and Sanders has every right to try and get the best bargain he can.
Click to expand...

Which is? To the point she will allow him much influence over her? I doubt it .
 
Still like Bernie and don't think he's a dick.

Really just think he's misguided, and that this is just a really tough part of the cycle. Obama and his staff HATED Hillary at this point.

It'll be fine.
 
“[Obama] is a cult. His campaign is an anti-woman cult.”

“I will actively campaign against him.”

“You know who is backing him is George Soros. It’ll be George Soros, not Obama, who is running the country.”

“South Dakota is totally rigged for Obama because of Tom Daschle. Obama’s going to win South Dakota because he’s buying it and rigging it.”

“[Obama] is a socialist! You know what the Nazi Party was before it was the Nazi Party? It was the Socialist Party.”
Click to expand...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/31/eating-a-reuben-amidst-a_n_104486.html

old times sake.
 
adam387 said:
And that's as asinine as this. It's okay to admit Bernie is wrong on something once in a while! I promise. I do it with Queen from time to time. It's all good brah.
Click to expand...

I've talked about stuff I think he's wrong about before - I'm not keen on his trade stances, for example, nor his gun policy. On this, however, he has my full support. He should get as much as he can out of this.
 
PBY said:
Still like Bernie and don't think he's a dick.

Really just think he's misguided, and that this is just a really tough part of the cycle. Obama and his staff HATED Hillary at this point.

It'll be fine.
Click to expand...

She never asked for anything like this. Hell she turned down SoS the first time and had to be talked into it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2016 |OT16| Unpresidented
395 396 397 398 399
20K
1M
PKrockin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2016 |OT13| For Queen and Country
386 387 388 389 390
19K
2M
Magni replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2016 |OT15| Orange is the New Black
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
The Technomancer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2016 |OT11| Well this is exciting
393 394 395 396 397
20K
1M
sc0la replied
Top Bottom