Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 178
  1. #106
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    101,470
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    As did Trump lol. Do you think that means he was the best option or there were not potentially better options?

    Do better means choose better candidates. Ones that don't have horrible histories, are extremely unlikeable, are playing into identity politics/culture war themselves often. That so many democrats voted for Hillary is only exposing that this issue of voting for bad candidates is not solely a one party issue. Both sides if you will are very flawed right now in terms of just trying to "play to win". Hillary and Trump largely exposed that in 16. One might be worse but that doesn't excuse the other.
    Based on the system we have now, he was the better candidate. Do I think he was the better? Iíll let my posts be the evidential submissions on that front.

    But you say choose better candidates and seem to think itís a reasonable or implementable solution. Itís like telling someone who is suffocating to just breath. Obvious on its face but entirely tautological.

    The Democratic voters picked who they thought was the best candidate as did the Republicans and then the country as a whole did the same.

  2. #107
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    41,327
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    Its also because people are tired of the status quo. They are so used to same song and dance that come from Republicans and Democrats. Change (some necessary, some not) doesn't happen through moderates and if it does, its tremendously scaled down versions of original proposals. Biden is facing that now, not just from opposition from Republicans but also some Democrats. The fact is people don't like change. Politicians like it even less. Its upsetting generational apple carts. It forces them to get off their ***** to do something and be accountable.

    Its a shame 3rd party candidates don't have the financial backing Democrats and Republicans do but even those idealisms are being stolen by said parties. QAnoners, Tea party members, socialist/ progressive Democrats are all pilfered elements of 3rd parties.

    Trump won because he spoke to that extremist base enough to get their support while getting the support of other Republicans and some Democratic voters.

    Like WES said though, things are changing. Democrats can't play their own game well anyways. The paradigm is shifting in their favor in terms of this country becoming left all the time and they still have a hard time winning elections on a state or federal level.
    It's not financial backing, it's the system of voting we have. We're always going to default to two parties unless and until we change how we vote. This isn't even unique to us, look at the political parties of Canda's or the UK's Prime Ministers, and they're all from one of two parties going back into the 1800's at least. You can get rid of the Democrats or the Republicans, we've done it before, but they're just replaced by another major party.

    Also, Democrats have no problem getting more votes. The problem is that getting those votes doesn't turn into representation. 39 million people in California are represented by two Senators, and 578,000 people are also represented by two Senators. A vote for President in California is worth less than a vote for President in Wyoming or Vermont. There's a reason one side is advancing bills to make voting more difficult, and it's because they know they need the system working in their favor in order to keep winning elections.


    "`Can you explain this gap in your resume?`

    `Well, the vaccinated hosts on the news channel I like convinced me to resign to protest my work's vaccine mandate and take a few years off to help extend the pandemicĒ" - @LOLGOP

  3. #108
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    43,109
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    This is such weird revisionist history. There's this cartoon version of Hillary Clinton that rarely matches up with the real thing, and it's legend has only grown as time has gone on. I don't even know what "play to win" is supposed to mean in regards to her. Should she have been playing to lose? Was Bernie not "playing to win" during the primary?

    All of this is also ignoring that when we talk about "Democrats" picking candidates, we're largely talking about black voters. You do not win the Democratic primary without black voters voting for you. It's what sunk Clinton in 2008, it's what sunk Bernie twice against two different people, it's what made Bill Clinton the nominee in 1992. It's not IL and CA and NY that matter in the primaries, it's southern minority voters, and it's incredible how often we like to talk down to them in these conversations. When we acknowledge them at all.

    But who are these mythical "better" candidates? Not Bernie. Not Warren, or Booker, or Harris. It wasn't Howard Dean, who didn't lose because he screamed into a mic one time, or Wesley Clark. Saying "do better" is easy; put a name on it.
    Isn't that up to the parties as well? I understand voters pick who they want to represent them but have Democrats or Republicans done a very good job of presenting us solid options? In 2016, the options from the Republican side were Trump, Cruz, Carson, Bush, Christie, etc.

    Hillary's only competition was Bernie Sanders. No one else came remotely close and that's an indictment on Democrats imo.

    2020 was a more open competition but that's because Biden's campaign was slow to pick up steam having lost the first 3 primaries.

  4. #109
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    43,109
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    It's not financial backing, it's the system of voting we have. We're always going to default to two parties unless and until we change how we vote. This isn't even unique to us, look at the political parties of Canda's or the UK's Prime Ministers, and they're all from one of two parties going back into the 1800's at least. You can get rid of the Democrats or the Republicans, we've done it before, but they're just replaced by another major party.

    Also, Democrats have no problem getting more votes. The problem is that getting those votes doesn't turn into representation. 39 million people in California are represented by two Senators, and 578,000 people are also represented by two Senators. A vote for President in California is worth less than a vote for President in Wyoming or Vermont. There's a reason one side is advancing bills to make voting more difficult, and it's because they know they need the system working in their favor in order to keep winning elections.
    The financial backing has to play a part in it too. I understand your point. That we are so regimented in a 2 party system but it certainly helps that Democrats and Republicans can raise half a billion dollars or more to run a presidential campaign for example. It gives them constant exposure. The Green or Libertarian party is not raising that type of funding for any of their respective candidates. 3rd parties certainly have better chances in more localized elections but when's the last time an independent made a dent in a presidential election? 1992? Ross Perot?

    There's no disagreement from me on your last point. I'm not brett. I know voter suppression exists and the reasons why one specific party is pushing it. There's an unbalanced system that like you said tries to speak for each state as if their needs and representation should be equal when they're not.

  5. #110
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    12,762
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    This is such weird revisionist history. There's this cartoon version of Hillary Clinton that rarely matches up with the real thing, and it's legend has only grown as time has gone on. I don't even know what "play to win" is supposed to mean in regards to her. Should she have been playing to lose? Was Bernie not "playing to win" during the primary?

    All of this is also ignoring that when we talk about "Democrats" picking candidates, we're largely talking about black voters. You do not win the Democratic primary without black voters voting for you. It's what sunk Clinton in 2008, it's what sunk Bernie twice against two different people, it's what made Bill Clinton the nominee in 1992. It's not IL and CA and NY that matter in the primaries, it's southern minority voters, and it's incredible how often we like to talk down to them in these conversations. When we acknowledge them at all.

    But who are these mythical "better" candidates? Not Bernie. Not Warren, or Booker, or Harris. It wasn't Howard Dean, who didn't lose because he screamed into a mic one time, or Wesley Clark. Saying "do better" is easy; put a name on it.
    Well it is revisionist history based on literal and what some see when looking back so you are not wrong. However I am talking about a bit more than just that as well which is related to Hillary and her as an individual. By play to win I mean she didn't overly have the same consistent message from start to finish. She didn't even campaign the same way depending on where she was or her opponent (she focused more on religious beliefs in primaries and especially the south than any other point, this is identity politics and culture war in a sense I have been getting at). She got away from that in the general because Trump was already taking that course and there is a drastic disparity on if each party thought she was Christian or not in part because of that. This identity politics/culture war bs is only part of it, now lets get into history and the attacking or going along with essentially relating to some of Bills accusers then playing into identity politics differently come 2016 in me too. Of course there is bengazi, vote for Iraq, the foundation as well but I am not going to do anything but note them as basic question marks because at this point it should be clear why people have an issue with her imo.

    The reason Bernie didn't have the same issues is he was far more consistent in his messages over time. He wasn't culture war based in some hypocrisy and further he didn't have nearly the same questions. The point is more so about how bad Hillary was though, play to win just means like clearly switching positions over time to benefit her most. Some of it gets overblown but she was a very bad candidate at the same time.

  6. #111
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Flock of Sheep No.97 near BAAA BAA lane
    Posts
    16,175
    Good night folks, thanks for the information exchange. Someone is telling me to get off the computer. PS, don't marry a woman with sharp elbows.
    There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.

    Will Rogers

  7. #112
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    41,327
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    Isn't that up to the parties as well? I understand voters pick who they want to represent them but have Democrats or Republicans done a very good job of presenting us solid options? In 2016, the options from the Republican side were Trump, Cruz, Carson, Bush, Christie, etc.

    Hillary's only competition was Bernie Sanders. No one else came remotely close and that's an indictment on Democrats imo.

    2020 was a more open competition but that's because Biden's campaign was slow to pick up steam having lost the first 3 primaries.
    No one came close in 2016 because everyone knew Clinton was going to take it. First Lady, US Senator, SecState, went to the wire with Obama in the primary, and until Republicans acted like the Holocaust happened in Benghazi she was massively popular as well. It's what makes the whole "Clinton stole the election" conspiracy theory so ridiculous on it's face.

    Was 2020 more open? There were certainly more candidates floating around, but outside of Pete's surprise (and narrow) win in Iowa and Bloomberg spending his ways to some delegates, the contest was effectively over by like mid-March. The math was a bit different, but Super Tuesday was pretty much the beginning of the end in 2016 and 2020. 2008 was the last one that was actually kind of close, and that involved dreaded Hillary Clinton again.

    And I still don't know what "play to win" is supposed to mean.


    "`Can you explain this gap in your resume?`

    `Well, the vaccinated hosts on the news channel I like convinced me to resign to protest my work's vaccine mandate and take a few years off to help extend the pandemicĒ" - @LOLGOP

  8. #113
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    41,327
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    The financial backing has to play a part in it too. I understand your point. That we are so regimented in a 2 party system but it certainly helps that Democrats and Republicans can raise half a billion dollars or more to run a presidential campaign for example. It gives them constant exposure. The Green or Libertarian party is not raising that type of funding for any of their respective candidates. 3rd parties certainly have better chances in more localized elections but when's the last time an independent made a dent in a presidential election? 1992? Ross Perot?

    There's no disagreement from me on your last point. I'm not brett. I know voter suppression exists and the reasons why one specific party is pushing it. There's an unbalanced system that like you said tries to speak for each state as if their needs and representation should be equal when they're not.
    Well, that's my point though. The last time an independent made a true dent in a Presidential election was Teddy Roosevelt, and he still ended up handing victory to the people that were further away from his positions. And this is after he was already a popular President.

    Elections are a zero sum game. There's no prize for finishing second, you just go home with no power like the guy that finished third and the woman that finished fifth. Until that isn't the case, there is no good argument for voting third party in any kind of remotely close election.


    "`Can you explain this gap in your resume?`

    `Well, the vaccinated hosts on the news channel I like convinced me to resign to protest my work's vaccine mandate and take a few years off to help extend the pandemicĒ" - @LOLGOP

  9. #114
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Hell on Earth- Missouri
    Posts
    17,645
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    Valuable contribution.
    Would you respect me more if I typed 4 paragraphs talking about Trump?

  10. #115
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    12,762
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    Based on the system we have now, he was the better candidate. Do I think he was the better? Iíll let my posts be the evidential submissions on that front.

    But you say choose better candidates and seem to think itís a reasonable or implementable solution. Itís like telling someone who is suffocating to just breath. Obvious on its face but entirely tautological.

    The Democratic voters picked who they thought was the best candidate as did the Republicans and then the country as a whole did the same.
    I don't expect extreme partisans to change or anything, I am just noting the real issue is how many there are. They keep voting for bad candidates because establishment tells them to or in case of Trump he plays the culture war to more of an extreme and beats the establishment now they are owned by him. Personality cult if you will.

    That democrats thought Hillary was the best candidate is part of the issue haha. Same with Republicans and Trump. That's part of why there is so much unrest right now. It's getting ridiculous how bad the candidates are and you are correct to point out the voters are an issue (in particular the extreme partisans/culture warriors for whichever side it may be).

  11. #116
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    41,327
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncsinmo View Post
    Would you respect me more if I typed 4 paragraphs talking about Trump?
    I would at least feel like you're a marginally intelligent person capable of carrying on a conversation longer than two sentences.


    "`Can you explain this gap in your resume?`

    `Well, the vaccinated hosts on the news channel I like convinced me to resign to protest my work's vaccine mandate and take a few years off to help extend the pandemicĒ" - @LOLGOP

  12. #117
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Hell on Earth- Missouri
    Posts
    17,645
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    I would at least feel like you're a marginally intelligent person capable of carrying on a conversation longer than two sentences.
    Thank God you don't think highly of me.
    GJO- You will never be forgotten. "MORE THAN MINFINITY"!

  13. #118
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    43,109
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    I would at least feel like you're a marginally intelligent person capable of carrying on a conversation longer than two sentences.
    Thanks for the laugh

  14. #119
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    7,943
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    Thanks for the laugh
    I mean if this was on the other shoe you would consider that an insult and they would be banned


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  15. #120
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    61,833
    Quote Originally Posted by Brewersfan255 View Post
    I mean if this was on the other shoe you would consider that an insult and they would be banned


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    other foot


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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