TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile

View Poll Results: How long will Trump be President?

Voters
144. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1 Term (4 Years)

    26 18.06%
  • 2 Terms (8 Years)

    51 35.42%
  • 1st Term Impeachment/Assassination

    50 34.72%
  • 2nd Term Impeachment/Assassination

    4 2.78%
  • I don't know what's going on!

    13 9.03%

Thread: ✮✮✮ !Trump Dump! ✮✮✮

  1. #12201
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Yeah, It's primarily a political move. The Democrats have shown their support it, which is something, but not nearly enough. They have to get 2/3rds of the Senate behind it to make it official, which is a near impossibility in today's political environment.

    ...but if the shit hits the fan, they can throw it in the Republicans face, and say "see, we told you so, American people!"

    And it providing the power for the president to claim we were in "imminent danger" has always been true. The Constitution itself allows that. What's important is that if it ends up being abused, the president can be held accountable for it after the fact. Of course, whether they'll be held accountable or not is another topic entirely.

  2. #12202
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    You don't need a president anyway. The USA only has one because the Founding Fathers were so habituated to Kings they presumed a solitary leader was a necessity, even in a democracy. As with kings, an enlightened one can do wonders but 8 out of 10 times they will be indifferent, incompetent, criminal, frail or congenitally stupid.

    I mean, keep the position but restrict the President to cutting ribbons and kissing babies.

  3. #12203
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    As far as Democratic candidates are concerned, I haven't changed my mind significantly since last August:

    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    Looking at the Democratic candidates, though, I can't help but think that they'll make boring presidents. Which is probably good for the US but not so much for comedy and the mass media. As for their chances, here's what it looks like from the outside, though of course I don't really know much about US politics...

    Biden is well known and has Obama as his virtual running mate. Probably the safe choice to win over those swing state voters. Though it's still a bit early, it seems like he has the nomination in the bag, barring some unforeseen circumstances.

    Warren and Sanders have authenticity on the side, with the track record to prove it. But they are too easily tarred due to their slightly left-leaning policies. Warren comes across as a bit of a policy wonk, to put it mildly, and I don't know if the showmanship-loving people of the US will go for that. Sanders certainly has the pathos down pat in his speeches, but he seems... older, or at least to me he doesn't seem to have quite the same fire as he had in 2016. But it also seems to me that they share a lot of the same base and if one of them were to drop out and support the other, they remaining candidate would pose a serious threat to Biden.

    Harris has a lot of presence... but that's about it. She'll probably attract the same kind of racist backlash Obama did, but without the charisma to brush it off. Being able to command attention is a good trait to have, but she'll definitely scare the white voter. Probably the weakest candidate in the swing states.

    Boot-edge-edge is the most surprising candidate by far. Soft-spoken, intelligent, extremely personable -- probably the most Obama-like candidate of them all. Frankly, I'm amazed he doesn't have more support than he does.

    Beto wasn't even able to beat the Zodiac killer in his home state, I don't think he can rally the crowds on a national level either.

    As for the rest of them, I don't think any of them has much chance to secure the nomination, if they haven't been able to get any traction by now. Some of them really should run for Senate, though, since they seem to be quite a bit more popular in their home states.
    Harris and Beto are now out and I don't think they were ever going to make it. Harris wasn't able to overcome the "she's the police" narrative and Beto only ever had a chance if he could win Texas. Which he couldn't. I think any of the remaining four still have a chance, though, even Petey boy.

    Seems to me Biden's still the strongest bet by far -- he's a comforting return to moderate values and a semblance of decency, appealing to both senior voters and suburban moms alike. Plus he has quite realistic plans and quite a lot of experience. No wonder Lord Dampnut is so afraid of Biden that he tried to abuse his office to throw a wrench in his campaign. As for his gaffes, I watched one of his recent rallies and he seemed quite coherent. And apparently he has been making similar gaffes for decades, so looks like it's not an age thing, but a Biden thing. In any case, a clear improvement over a president who can't pronounce ordinary words and speaks gibberish even on best days.

    Bernie is the next strongest candidate in my opinion. He has a lot of support among young people and a lot of street cred as a life-long activist. Here's the thing, though... young people don't vote, so it's not going to help him all that much. And his message of inequality does well with the progressive Democratic base, but it's not really very effective otherwise. Generally, people respond more to the fear that something is being taken away from them or that other people might get something they don't deserve. And it's just as true now than it was at the time of Reagan (and the reason why Lord Dampnut recycles this so much). He might get some traction with his main issue, single-payer health care, but it is one of the toughest problems in US politics, as the people who need single-payer healthcare the most already have it and don't care for expanding it. Even if legislatively it's a dud, he might still be able to do something administratively, though, at least as far as things like drug prices are concerned. And his ability to gather grassroots support (and their campaign contributions) is not to be underestimated.

    Warren has a very similar message to Bernie, but she seems to have a lot of very ambitious goals -- getting rid of dark money in politics, universal health care, free college, a wealth tax... many of which entirely depend on Democrats winning the Senate and seem to be quite the long shot even then. As Ian Shapiro puts it, "Policy without politics is empty, and politics without policy is blind," and despite the slogan of having a plan for everything, it doesn't seem she has one for the politics side of things.

    Buttigieg I think has the least chance of them all. He seems like a good candidate on paper, but he has a big problem -- nobody knows him. And I think this election people are looking for known quantities and people with experience -- someone who can beat Lord Dampnut. His poll numbers are not too bad, but lack of support among black voters is what's going to drag him down most likely.
    Last edited by Starker; 10th Jan 2020 at 02:06.

  4. #12204
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    You'd never have a commitee style government anywhere with no supreme leader. Never going to happen.

  5. #12205
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    please why Renz?

  6. #12206
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Another one of Lord Dampnut's very fine people has been arrested:

    https://apnews.com/e85c1a425cae3d26ebad4730e73b6062

    MELBOURNE, Fla. (AP) — A white nationalist who ran for the U.S. Senate in Florida and was a featured speaker during the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, was arrested on charges of kidnapping, domestic violence and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence.

    Augustus Sol Invictus, 36, was arrested Monday at a Florida mall by Brevard County Sheriff’s deputies on a warrant issued out of South Carolina, the Miami Herald reported. Jail records described him as an “out of state fugitive.”

    The Herald noted that news of the arrest was first reported on Twitter by the journalist Nick Martin, who focuses on covering “hate and extremism” in the U.S.

    Invictus, an Orlando-area attorney, has called for violent uprisings. During his 2016 Senate bid to unseat U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, he got widespread attention for claiming that he killed a goat and drank its blood as part of a pagan ritual. He failed, however, to win the nomination from Florida’s Libertarian Party to challenge Rubio.

    White nationalist Richard Spencer, who organized the deadly Charlottesville rally that refocused attention on the country’s frayed race relations, had credited Invictus with drafting the core tenets behind the rally.
    [...]

  7. #12207
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Switzerland
    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    You'd never have a commitee style government anywhere with no supreme leader. Never going to happen.
    Switzerland has exactly that. There is a president, but that position is purely procedural and has no powers over the committee of seven Federal Counsellors.

  8. #12208
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    You'd never have a commitee style government anywhere with no supreme leader. Never going to happen.
    Because.... failure of imagination.

  9. #12209
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicker View Post
    You don't need a president anyway. The USA only has one because the Founding Fathers were so habituated to Kings they presumed a solitary leader was a necessity, even in a democracy. As with kings, an enlightened one can do wonders but 8 out of 10 times they will be indifferent, incompetent, criminal, frail or congenitally stupid.

    I mean, keep the position but restrict the President to cutting ribbons and kissing babies.
    why should babies have to suffer?
    most of the world is used to dealing with one representative of their country.
    the buck stops at the top but at the same time it's a shame people seemingly forget the role congress plays in fucking things up.

    pissing on people's backs & calling it rain

  10. #12210
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    Supreme leader is the wrong term. Head of state is the right term. The key difference between the US system and a Parliamentary system is that the US has separate executive and legislative branches with powers divided between them. A PM or equivalent in a common Parliamentary system is inherently more powerful than a President because they run the government and also lead the controlling party in the legislature. After all, the whole point of separating government powers and granting them to independently electable offices is to limit the power of the President. The founders of the US didn't want a King obviously, but they didn't want a Caesar or Cromwell either. I think there are pluses and minuses. From a practical standpoint, the US system allows voters to divide government between the parties, as a way to prevent either party from enacting any major changes that don't have bipartisan support. But major problems are rarely solved by divided government, so we have broken systems (e.g. immigration, health care) that have been festering for decades due to a lack of consensus. On the other hand, the Parliamentary system allows a majority of the majority party to change your head of government at any time without any popular mandate to do so.

    I would like to see more direct democracy, but I don't think the Swiss model would work at the scale of the US or EU. I would like to see that at the state level though.

  11. #12211
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    Here's the thing, though... young people don't vote, so it's not going to help him all that much.
    Speaking purely anecdotally from my own observations, a lot of younger eligible voters tend to be disinterested in voting when neither candidate is appealing to them. We saw this extend to the broader electorate with Clinton, whose loss came in part because Democrats didn't turn out to vote. Whereas in the primaries, young people cast more votes for Sanders than for Clinton and Trump combined.

    Just saying, I think it's putting the cart before the horse to say that Sanders wouldn't win because young people don't vote.

    They probably won't if Biden ends up getting the nomination, though- so far he really seems like a direct repeat of Clinton, popular within the party's old guard but not especially progressive nor appealing to moderates. But maybe a campaign of 'not Trump' will work this time around.

  12. #12212
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    Sanders winning is a loss to the US..........
    at least right now with all the damn corruption we have.

  13. #12213
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    Most pundits seem to think the election will be decided by base turnout rather than voters crossing over or a swing of independents. Joe Biden may seem like a safe choice, but he doesn't have a lot of people excited about him, and his Washington experience comes with baggage that the Republicans can exploit. I think the trend of public opinion here is still to buck the establishment, and you don't get any more establishment than Joe Biden, so he's got that same weakness as Clinton. Even if he wins the election, the lack of interest/excitement that comes with being an old moderate means he probably won't have coat tails like Obama did in 2008. But the main reason why I don't like Biden is that he has no vision. I don't want a caretaker administration that's just going to keep us steady on this road.

    I think Warren might be the strongest candidate in the general election. She has wide appeal across the Democratic party, I think she can turn out progressive Democrats and female Democrats better than Biden. She's nationally known, treated well by the press, and doesn't carry a lot of negative baggage. Also, she spent most of her life as a moderate Republican, so perhaps she doesn't scare the big Democratic donors as much as Sanders.

    I like Sanders better because of his independent track record and campaign finances. He's less dependent on the party's support and less likely to bait and switch us like Obama did. Remember Obama reassuring party leaders that he was on the New Democrat side right after he won the election? I do not agree with Sanders on every policy, but I share his priorities and many of his goals. And if the voters deliver a Democrat-controlled Congress, I think he's got a better chance of doing something good with it than the other candidates.

    Buttigieg appears to be the only viable moderate alternative to Biden. He's well spoken, intelligent, likeable, and has plenty of ambition and energy. But he'd be a complete noob in Washington and I'd rather give the keys to the White House to somebody who knows what goes on there. I'd like to see him replace Tom Perez as party chair, and if he does well at it, then run again.

  14. #12214
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by catbarf View Post
    Just saying, I think it's putting the cart before the horse to say that Sanders wouldn't win because young people don't vote.

    They probably won't if Biden ends up getting the nomination, though- so far he really seems like a direct repeat of Clinton, popular within the party's old guard but not especially progressive nor appealing to moderates. But maybe a campaign of 'not Trump' will work this time around.
    I'm not saying he won't win because of his youth support, only that it's not going to be enough to have the support of a group who consistently has the lowest turnout. Warren, for example, has managed to widen her appeal quite a bit and has been picking up black and moderate voters (supporters of Kamala Harris perhaps?).

    And I do think that this election will largely be a referendum on Lord Dampnut. At least more so than it will be about any other issue or policy. Biden is not as progressive as some of the other candidates, that is true, but this election will be decided in the swing states where progressivism doesn't carry much water anyway. In the rest of the 35 states or so, the election is already over.

  15. #12215
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    all democrats are offering is more damn taxes for feel good stupid crap while saying fuck trump.

    I don't them winning with that crap.

  16. #12216
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    You know, like healthcare and stuff. Just stupid namby pamby pussy shit.

    IMMA SAY WE OFFER A TAX UP TO GIVE EVERY RED BLOODED REAL AMERICAN AN ARMALITE BRAND AR-15! CUZ WHEN THE TOWELHEADS COME TO KILL YOU DEAD, AIN'T NO GLUTEN FREE VEGAN SHIT GON SAVE YOUR ASS!

  17. #12217
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Quote Originally Posted by jkcerda View Post
    all democrats are offering is more damn taxes for feel good stupid crap while saying fuck trump.

    I don't them winning with that crap.
    Because endless war is much better value for money than universal health care.

  18. #12218
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    BUT OBAMA!

  19. #12219
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Trump claims responsibility for lowering cancer rates.

    You know, it wouldn't be so bad if there weren't all these people who take everything that comes out of his mouth as gospel truth.

  20. #12220
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicker View Post
    Because endless war is much better value for money than universal health care.
    worthless democrats are pretending to stand against trump. name ONE democrat against war OTHER THAN TULSI.

  21. #12221
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Sanders, but you won't vote for him because he broke your heart. There's also Warren, though she's not popular with the gun crowd.

  22. #12222
    You could always vote for the guy who said "we need to disarm minorities to save them":

    https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2...arming-minori/

  23. #12223
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Oh gee! Bloomberg. Another celebrity, espousing openly racist principles and who thinks that the parasitic accumulation of wealth makes one suitable to govern.

    Are liberals supposed to be embarrassed because of him, Tony?

  24. #12224
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Quote Originally Posted by jkcerda View Post
    worthless democrats are pretending to stand against trump. name ONE democrat against war OTHER THAN TULSI.
    WHADDABOUT!

    Universal healthcare is not ""Feel Good Stupid Crap"". You are not helping your case, whatever that actually is.

  25. #12225
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    Sanders, but you won't vote for him because he broke your heart. There's also Warren, though she's not popular with the gun crowd.
    warren.votex to increase military spending

Page 489 of 558 FirstFirst ... 239389439444449454459464469474479484485486487488489490491492493494499504509514519524529534539 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •