dimreepr Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 We can wish for the good, but unless we fight against the bad we'll always be Trumped...
rangerx Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 3 minutes ago, Raider5678 said: Hillary had less votes than Obama, so she lost votes. I think that's partially because Trump convinced some people she was corrupt simply because she had been in Washington already. That's a fallacy. Also Hillary wasn't convicted of anything, so the narrative of corruption is just a partisan opinion and not a fact.
Raider5678 Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 1 minute ago, dimreepr said: We can wish for the good, but unless we fight against the bad we'll always be Trumped... Many people thought that was what they were doing by voting for Trump.
EdEarl Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 1 minute ago, Raider5678 said: However, you also have to note this is how Trump managed to convince some people to not vote for Hillary. Hillary had less votes than Obama, so she lost votes. I think that's partially because Trump convinced some people she was corrupt simply because she had been in Washington already. Perhaps some people believed Trump. I always thought Trump would be worse; however, he as surprised me with how bad he is. That doesn't mean I really liked Hillary, she was the least poisonous of two snakes. Any politician that takes PAC money is IMO corrupt, no mater what party they claim.
rangerx Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 1 minute ago, EdEarl said: Perhaps some people believed Trump. I always thought Trump would be worse; however, he as surprised me with how bad he is. That doesn't mean I really liked Hillary, she was the least poisonous of two snakes. Any politician that takes PAC money is IMO corrupt, no mater what party they claim. I don't PAC either, but if it's the law of the land it's not corrupt insomuch as it bad for the country on the whole.
Raider5678 Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 1 minute ago, rangerx said: That's a fallacy. Also Hillary wasn't convicted of anything, so the narrative of corruption is just a partisan opinion and not a fact. No. It's not a fallacy, it's a fact. She got fewer votes than Obama did in 2012. In my opinion, the fact that independents got 5.5 million more votes than before, is quite hopeful that we might be getting tired of parties. Until you realize that probably had a lot to do with Bernie Sanders. Unless I'm mistaken.
EdEarl Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 2 minutes ago, rangerx said: I don't PAC either, but if it's the law of the land it's not corrupt insomuch as it bad for the country on the whole. There is legal corruption and ethical corruption. That law is ethically corrupt. Thus, my opinion stands. Some laws should be opposed.
Raider5678 Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 Just now, EdEarl said: Looking at the chart I posted, would you agree it might indicate a growing sentiment like yours, against political parties? There were only 732,000 write in votes during the 2016 election, so 4 million of those extra votes were for 3rd party candidates.
rangerx Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said: No. It's not a fallacy, it's a fact. She got fewer votes than Obama did in 2012. She got less votes, is true. She lost votes, is a fallacy.
Raider5678 Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 1 minute ago, rangerx said: She got less votes, is true. She lost votes, is a fallacy. Explain.
rangerx Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 1 minute ago, Raider5678 said: Explain. One has to possess something first to lose it. She had zero votes coming into the election. She actually got more votes than Trump, but lost the election, so by logic of that comment, Trump lost the election.
EdEarl Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 14 minutes ago, Raider5678 said: Looking at the chart I posted, would you agree it might indicate a growing sentiment like yours, against political parties? There were only 732,000 write in votes during the 2016 election, so 4 million of those extra votes were for 3rd party candidates. I hope your statistics do not show a swell of people who are fed up with both parties. Otherwise, our ignorance is the Great Filter.
Raider5678 Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 2 minutes ago, EdEarl said: I hope your statistics do not show a swell of people who are fed up with both parties. Otherwise, our ignorance is the Great Filter. What do you mean? 7 minutes ago, rangerx said: One has to possess something first to lose it. She had zero votes coming into the election. I was talking in the sense she lost votes for the democratic party.
iNow Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 13 minutes ago, Raider5678 said: I was talking in the sense she lost votes for the democratic party. Just so we can avoid another 10 pages of bullshit bickering, let's all just agree that Clinton received fewer votes than Obama and move on, please. 48 minutes ago, rangerx said: That's a fallacy. To be clear, I'm including this line of discussion, too.
Raider5678 Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, iNow said: Just so we can avoid another 10 pages of bullshit bickering, let's all just agree that Clinton received fewer votes than Obama and move on, please. Agreed. Luckily, there's a limit to how many downvotes one can give in a day. Edited January 10, 2018 by Raider5678
EdEarl Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 The Great Filter. I haven't heard official estimates of how quickly the permafrost is likely to dump its carbon into the atmosphere or how much it is likely to raise the global temperature, unless an emergency worldwide effort reduces the threat. However, scientists estimate there is twice as much carbon in the tundra as in the atmosphere; thus, it seems likely all of it in the atmosphere would mean 1200 ppm CO2 or greater effect since some of the permafrost carbon will emit as methane, which is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. The 400 ppm will raise global temperature 2C+, 1200+ ppm seems to indicate 6C+, which would be catastrophic IIRC. I hope the folks doing climate models will be able to assuage my concerns and show I am hysterical for no cause. In the mean time, I shall oppose all climate change deniers peacefully, even if they assassinate me.
rangerx Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 15 minutes ago, Raider5678 said: I was talking in the sense she lost votes for the democratic party. Okay, I'll leave this discussion because the playfield isn't level. Apparently it's okay to get pissy if Trump is mentioned in the thread, but Hillary is fair game. I'm out.
EdEarl Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 Hope I didn't spoil the fun. Quote newsmax Oprah Winfrey would defeat President Donald Trump by 10 points in a hypothetical presidential head-to-head, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports survey of likely voters.
Phi for All Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 Personally, I think the goal should be to reduce/remove the influence of money and fame on our elections, and politics in general, so electing another wealthy celebrity seems like a version of insanity. And I think we've all seen what happens when we assume non-political skills will somehow translate over to better politics. Of course, it may take a billionaire media mogul to point out the disparity in wealth, the untrustworthiness of for-profit news, and the cancerous relationship between lobbyists and representatives of the People. All these things need to change, imo, so I'm a bit leery. Even if she doesn't want to eat us like the current wolf wants, she may still think wolves are entitled to more than what they can catch themselves, and take a bit extra from each of the sheep they're sworn to protect. I'm hoping we need to open a Warren-Harris Ticket thread soon.
Strange Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 1 hour ago, Phi for All said: Personally, I think the goal should be to reduce/remove the influence of money and fame on our elections, and politics in general Top quote someone from another thread, "good luck with that!" I think it is an admirable goal but I just can't see it happening. The best we can do is elect people who are able to remain decent despite the huge amounts of money around them. (Whether Oprah fits that description or not, I don't know.)
Ten oz Posted January 10, 2018 Author Posted January 10, 2018 43 minutes ago, Phi for All said: Personally, I think the goal should be to reduce/remove the influence of money and fame on our elections, and politics in general, so electing another wealthy celebrity seems like a version of insanity. And I think we've all seen what happens when we assume non-political skills will somehow translate over to better politics. I think the Ship has set sail and is well beyond the horizon. One of the stunning things about 2016 for me was that way media willingly gave Trump billions in free air time. PACs, mega donors, and etc normally frame the discussion around money in politics but it was media (social and news) which gave Trump billions in 2016. Our media is for profit and in 2016 they aired whatever got the most eye balls, period, with zero consideration for the impact on the election. Clinton actually raised more money than Trump but Trump didn't need money to buy things like air time because media gave it to him for free in trade for ratings. I would vote for a Warren/Harris ticket in a heartbeat. That said Warren cannot compete with Trump's ability to get headlines. Warren would be on her heals playing defense throughout the campaign. Most people do not follow politics. They are huge portions of the population which simply do not have the interest or attention span to follow Warren's thought out and detailed approach to governance. I actually think words like governance and democracy make a lot of people eyes role up in their heads. People don't want good governance they want leadership. They don't want democracy they want to win. In this environment I don't think Warren is the best candidate if being the best includes the ability to win. In my opinion Biden is the only Democrat with a large enough profile and aggressive enough personalty demand anything is the small ballpark of equal time from the media.
EdEarl Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 1 minute ago, Strange said: Top quote someone from another thread, "good luck with that!" I think it is an admirable goal but I just can't see it happening. The best we can do is elect people who are able to remain decent despite the huge amounts of money around them. (Whether Oprah fits that description or not, I don't know.) I think Phi's idea is more likely than yours, Strange. Wolf-PAC.com is collecting signatures in each state to convene an Article V Convention to amend the constitution and restore free and fair elections. People should participate more in local elections to eliminate undesirables from city government, and work upward to state and federal level. If the people can take control of cities and counties, they can organize locally for state and federal contests.
Phi for All Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 10 minutes ago, Strange said: Top quote someone from another thread, "good luck with that!" I think it is an admirable goal but I just can't see it happening. The best we can do is elect people who are able to remain decent despite the huge amounts of money around them. (Whether Oprah fits that description or not, I don't know.) How much does the average candidate in the UK spend to get elected? Do you have limits on how many ads they can buy, how much others can donate to them? How is lobbying handled in the UK? In the US, some of the largest companies can make more money lobbying politicians for subsidies than they make on some of their product lines. In the highest corporate circles, siphoning off taxpayer funds has become an art form.
Raider5678 Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 1 minute ago, EdEarl said: I think Phi's idea is more likely than yours, Strange. Wolf-PAC.com is collecting signatures in each state to convene an Article V Convention to amend the constitution and restore free and fair elections. People should participate more in local elections to eliminate undesirables from city government, and work upward to state and federal level. If the people can take control of cities and counties, they can organize locally for state and federal contests. Counties in smaller areas are already well rid of most corruption. In the areas around where I live, every county has supervisors that virtually everyone already knows. They're held accountable pretty much directly. But once it reaches state and federal levels, officals are no longer directly held accountable by the people they represent.
mynamben Posted January 10, 2018 Posted January 10, 2018 She said that she wasn't going to run for office. Quite ironic that people are rooting for another billionaire tv star to run for President when most said Trump isn't suitable for the same qualities. Not making any comparison between them, but just because you have status, doesn't mean that you are qualified to run a country.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now