• 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 |OT9| The Wrath of Khan!

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Wolfgunblood Garopa

Member
DontBeThatGuy said:
It's impossible for him to not sound like a complete bullshit artist.
Click to expand...

Donald Trump's political success story is the greatest exposé yet of just how stunted right wing voters' judge of character is. I would bet that among all right wing and right leaning voters, this one characteristic would be the one most commonly shared.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Special C said:
So PoliGAF. If Gary Johnson makes it into the debates who is he taking votes from? I personally dont care who, I think its more important for our country to hear a third voice this election than which one of these dumpster fires actually win.
Click to expand...
tumblr_nsmxfqI3bd1qkko3bo1_400.gif

The stream for Hillary starts at 2:00pm est
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYE8GO8URXHt3eLkqeo3uSw
 
K

kadotsu

Banned
Special C said:
So PoliGAF. If Gary Johnson makes it into the debates who is he taking votes from? I personally dont care who, I think its more important for our country to hear a third voice this election than which one of these dumpster fires actually win.
Click to expand...

Too bad the third voice is as batshit as Trump.
 
B

Box of Kittens

Banned
Special C said:
So PoliGAF. If Gary Johnson makes it into the debates who is he taking votes from? I personally dont care who, I think its more important for our country to hear a third voice this election than which one of these dumpster fires actually win.
Click to expand...

He's not getting in the debates. He needs to start polling above 15% and he's pretty consistently in the 7-10% range. As it stands he seems to be drawing from the candidates roughly equally.
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
Special C said:
So PoliGAF. If Gary Johnson makes it into the debates who is he taking votes from? I personally dont care who, I think its more important for our country to hear a third voice this election than which one of these dumpster fires actually win.
Click to expand...

Why do we need a third voice? It doesn't really do anything, third parties in presidential races are nothing but spoilers. They have no historical impact at all on anything other than who wins. They make no notable changes to party platforms.

Just a few pages ago there was even a discussion on how third parties are hurting Maine.

And Johnson is just a Republican who likes weed. So we'd have two conservatives on stage vs Hillary. That doesn't help anyone. Unless you're conservative.
 
S

Special C

Member
balladofwindfishes said:
Why do we need a third voice? It doesn't really do anything, third parties in presidential races are nothing but spoilers. They have no historical impact at all on anything other than who wins. They make no notable changes to party platforms.
Click to expand...

Because change has to come gradually. It would probably realistically take 30-40 years for anything to even start to change, but I care what kind of country my Kids grow up in. Im not even libertarian but at some point the status quo needs to be challenged.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Special C said:
So PoliGAF. If Gary Johnson makes it into the debates who is he taking votes from? I personally dont care who, I think its more important for our country to hear a third voice this election than which one of these dumpster fires actually win.
Click to expand...

This post is bad, you're a bad poster.

Special C said:
Because change has to come gradually. It would probably realistically take 30-40 years for anything to even start to change, but I care what kind of country my Kids grow up in. Im not even libertarian but at some point the status quo needs to be challenged.
Click to expand...

The status quo is great. Incremental improvement for the win.
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
Special C said:
Because change has to come gradually. It would probably realistically take 30-40 years for anything to even start to change, but I care what kind of country my Kids grow up in. Im not even libertarian but at some point the status quo needs to be challenged.
Click to expand...
This doesn't happen by including a third party in the debate.

It just takes time away from letting the only two people who could possibly be president from getting time to explain themselves
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Special C said:
Because change has to come gradually. It would probably realistically take 30-40 years for anything to even start to change, but I care what kind of country my Kids grow up in. Im not even libertarian but at some point the status quo needs to be challenged.
Click to expand...

I mean, why does the "status quo" need to be challenged? Eight years the status quo was more lost jobs, higher levels of uninsured Americans, less respect around the world. Now the status quo is more jobs, fewer uninsured people, more equality for LGBT people.

Wanting to burn something down for the sake of burning it down because CHANGE isn't a great philosophy. It is something that will never, ever happen at the presidential level anyway. First past the post and the electoral college makes a 3rd party nothing more than a spoiler.

Boke1879 said:
Just quoting that "wow" at the end of the trump tweet. I find that shit hilarious. Like he's making a big statement or a point.
Click to expand...

I mean, okay....coulda said my hair looked nice. Whatever though. :p
 
B

Boke1879

Member
adam387 said:
I mean, why does the "status quo" need to be challenged? Eight years the status quo was more lost jobs, higher levels of uninsured Americans, less respect around the world. Now the status quo is more jobs, fewer uninsured people, more equality for LGBT people.

Wanting to burn something down for the sake of burning it down because CHANGE isn't a great philosophy. It is something that will never, ever happen at the presidential level anyway. First past the post and the electoral college makes a 3rd party nothing more than a spoiler.



I mean, okay....coulda said my hair looked nice. Whatever though. :p
Click to expand...

;)
 
T

thebloo

Member
Special C said:
Because change has to come gradually. It would probably realistically take 30-40 years for anything to even start to change, but I care what kind of country my Kids grow up in. Im not even libertarian but at some point the status quo needs to be challenged.
Click to expand...

There was a dude in 92 and 96. Do you feel his impact?
 
B

Bonen no Max'd

Banned
Eh Teddy helped moved the progressive movement to the Democrats and I can't imagine Thurmond and Wallace didn't help the movement of the south to the Republicans but third parties now ain't doing shit.
 
B

bangbang i'm a timpani

Banned
Special C said:
So PoliGAF. If Gary Johnson makes it into the debates who is he taking votes from? I personally dont care who, I think its more important for our country to hear a third voice this election than which one of these dumpster fires actually win.
Click to expand...

I want to clarify something on this dumpster fire analogy. I see it all the time.

Dumpster fires are controlled flames that are at least in a space. A dumpster fire, by definition, is contained. Clinton is a dumpster fire. I don't love her, but shes getting my vote. Her handling of the Clinton initiative stuff has been far more contained than her complete screwup of the emails b/c at least she learns things.

The donald is a raving ball of lunacy that has no clear path. Comparing the two as some equivalent in terms of ridiculousness is almost impossible.
 
R

rjinaz

Member
bangbang i'm a timpani said:
I want to clarify something on this dumpster fire analogy. I see it all the time.

Dumpster fires are controlled flames that are at least in a space. A dumpster fire, by definition, is contained. Clinton is a dumpster fire. I don't love her, but shes getting my vote. Her handling of the Clinton initiative stuff has been far more contained than her complete screwup of the emails b/c at least she learns things.

The donald is a raving ball of lunacy that has no clear path. Comparing the two as some equivalent in terms of ridiculousness is almost impossible.
Click to expand...

I think people use it because of the whole dumpster/trash aspect.

But you're right, Trump is more like a wild fire or a forest fire really.
 
R

Roland_Gunner

Member
remist said:
If it was politically possible would you guys support switching to a parlimentary system instead of a 2 party system?
Click to expand...

You can have a two party parliamentary system. For years there were only two British parties with meaningful representation in the commons. I would support moving away from the Presidential model to the parliamentary one to avoid the gridlock we have now. In Canada Trudeau is much more able to enact his agenda because of the majority he has in parliament.
 
R

remist

Member
Debirudog said:
What are the advantages to a parliamentary system compared to a 2 party one.
Click to expand...
Primarily that someone who doesnt feel represented by the two major parties won't be wasting their vote if they support a third party that is ideologically closer to them. Also party leadership has to be more responsive to their constituents because there are real alternatives.
 
F

Fragamemnon

Member
remist said:
If it was politically possible would you guys support switching to a parlimentary system instead of a 2 party system?
Click to expand...

I'd feel it would be better but this country has enough demographic and ideological shear that I worry about Belgian-grade dysfunction. It would need to devolve into a two party parliamentary system with one or two PMs per election from other parties represented to work.

It might have the benefit of making a fair and uniform manner in which states allocate their representatives, which is a huge mess right now and is clearly anti-democratic.
 
B

BlastProcessing

Member
remist said:
If it was politically possible would you guys support switching to a parlimentary system instead of a 2 party system?
Click to expand...

Nope. In a Parliamentary system, political coalitions are formed after the election. You end up in situations like in the UK where Lib Dem voters voted for one thing and then got a Tory Government after the fact. A vote for local representation gets awkwardly tied up in Parliamentary politic and distorted.

In a two party system, the coalitions are formed before the election. As a voter, I have a much better idea of what I am supporting.

I also think that, by their nature, Parliamentary Governments can be too fast and reactionary. I like my government to be laboriously, grindingly slow. You also end up with situations like Belgium going 589 days without a government. No thanks.
 
I

IggyChooChoo

Member
remist said:
If it was politically possible would you guys support switching to a parlimentary system instead of a 2 party system?
Click to expand...
I'm open to the idea of a unicameral federal legislature, which I imagine would have similar benefits.

Box of Kittens said:
When the national polls are in your favor, diablos about state polls. When the state polls are in your favor, diablos about national polls. When both are in your favor, diablos about optics.
Click to expand...
This is a fine post.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
remist said:
Primarily that someone who doesnt feel represented by the two major parties won't be wasting their vote if they support a third party that is ideologically closer to them. Also party leadership has to be more responsive to their constituents because there are real alternatives.
Click to expand...

I mean, your vote is wasted on non-viable parties in a parliamentary system too, especially if it still uses first past the post. In the 2015 UK election, for example, the Lib Dems got almost 8% of the vote, yet ended up with less than 2% of the seats in Parliament. SNP got less than 5% of the vote but got 8% of the seats. It's even more gross for the Conservatives. They got 37% of the vote, yet ended up with 50% of the seats in Parliament.

I don't believe that a parliamentary system is intrinsically better or worse when it comes to "wasting your vote." If I live in the Wealden constituency, I ca vote for a Green candidate if I want. It's not going to make a difference.
 
F

Fragamemnon

Member
BlastProcessing said:
You also end up with situations like Belgium going 589 days without a government. No thanks.
Click to expand...

I think in countries where the voter base is linguistically, ethnically, and ideologically more uniform parlimentary systems offer a lot of value since the "you own everything!" approach generally results in a pretty centrist (w/ leaning towards progressive/conservative) government. Even under Harper Canada wasn't ruled by an extreme conservative agenda. Same with the UK.

Belgium has deep linguistic, historical, and economic divisions that make governing from the center extremely difficult. I think the USA would be even worse off given our diverse population and increasing tendency to politically self-segregate.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
In yet another hypocritical example for republicans in this election, remember how they reacted to Assange and Wikileaks leaking information before Hillary was involved? That guy and organization were getting destroyed by them in the media. Now that he's leaking Hillary stuff?

Silence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4
197
28K
Rockondevil replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
55K
DGrayson replied
  • 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 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
Top Bottom