Jump to content

The Democrat Thread


Rex Kickass

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (greg775 @ Apr 11, 2015 -> 11:03 PM)
I am depressed. Sunday is the day she declares she's running for President of the United States? I read her main points of emphasis will be equal pay for women and some other women's rights issues. SO SMART!!! Keep it general and get 95 percent or more of the female vote. That is gonna help greatly as she becomes the first woman president. s*** ... she ought to just come out and say it. Run on that platform. Tell all women ... "it's time! A woman needs to get her chance to run this country!" Ah who am I kidding. She won't need to say it. The equal pay thing is genius. Nobody can disagree with her and she will be seen as a hero to all.

 

A female Presidential candidate appeals to women? Ya don't say...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Replies 20.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • StrangeSox

    3536

  • Balta1701

    3002

  • lostfan

    1460

  • BigSqwert

    1397

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Oral arguments were held today in the SSM case at the Supreme Court. Several wrap-ups here, but the overall takeaway seems to be cautious optimism for at least requiring all states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states if not a requirement for same-sex marriages in all states.

 

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015...ut-gay-marriage

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/cou...218e_story.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/us/supre...l?smid=pl-share

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 28, 2015 -> 12:24 PM)
Oral arguments were held today in the SSM case at the Supreme Court. Several wrap-ups here, but the overall takeaway seems to be cautious optimism for at least requiring all states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states if not a requirement for same-sex marriages in all states.

 

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015...ut-gay-marriage

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/cou...218e_story.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/us/supre...l?smid=pl-share

I'd be shocked if Kennedy (and by extension the Court) doesn't go in favor of gay marriage. All the ingredients are there. It's long past due.

 

I'm more looking forward to what apoplectic diatribes Scalia comes out with in his 785 page dissent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't think of anything less serious than a third party presidential campaign.

 

That's because the typical third party candidate is a crackpot who's never been elected to anything. Sanders has been elected to the House 8 times and the Senate twice as an Independent. If there were ever a person who could legitimize a third party presidential campaign, it's Sanders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but I bet Bernie Sanders remembers how much good Ralph Nader's 2000 campaign did for the country and the world. Plus, he hasn't even had a (D) candidate to run against in Vermont in years. Don't get me wrong, I'd personally greatly prefer Sanders to Clinton or whoever the eventual dem nominee is, but I'd also greatly prefer not handing the Presidential election to whoever the Republican nominee is with a left-wing third party run that would only siphon votes from the Democrat. The national two party system is an artifact of the structure of our government and our elections. If you want a more-than-two-party system, you need something more like a parliamentary system, not a Presidential system with a legislature with tons of veto points like we have.

 

edit: also, a good portion of the country would consider an open socialist to be a crackpot

Edited by StrangeSox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but I bet Bernie Sanders remembers how much good Ralph Nader's 2000 campaign did for the country and the world. Plus, he hasn't even had a (D) candidate to run against in Vermont in years. Don't get me wrong, I'd personally greatly prefer Sanders to Clinton or whoever the eventual dem nominee is, but I'd also greatly prefer not handing the Presidential election to whoever the Republican nominee is with a left-wing third party run that would only siphon votes from the Democrat. The national two party system is an artifact of the structure of our government and our elections. If you want a more-than-two-party system, you need something more like a parliamentary system, not a Presidential system with a legislature with tons of veto points like we have.

 

edit: also, a good portion of the country would consider an open socialist to be a crackpot

 

I know, just wishful thinking on my part. I'm never going to fit into American politics because I like several of Sanders' positions, but I like a lot of Rand Paul's positions as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 30, 2015 -> 12:21 PM)
Yeah, but I bet Bernie Sanders remembers how much good Ralph Nader's 2000 campaign did for the country and the world. Plus, he hasn't even had a (D) candidate to run against in Vermont in years. Don't get me wrong, I'd personally greatly prefer Sanders to Clinton or whoever the eventual dem nominee is, but I'd also greatly prefer not handing the Presidential election to whoever the Republican nominee is with a left-wing third party run that would only siphon votes from the Democrat. The national two party system is an artifact of the structure of our government and our elections. If you want a more-than-two-party system, you need something more like a parliamentary system, not a Presidential system with a legislature with tons of veto points like we have.

 

edit: also, a good portion of the country would consider an open socialist to be a crackpot

 

He runs as an independent, but there's some degree of coordination with the party. The truth is, his run is really about nudging Hillary to the left a bit. She's a centrist pure and simple. So was Obama, at the end of the day. If Sanders as a competitor and Warren on the outside can make Clinton a little less cozy with Wall Street, its probably as good as they can hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Brian @ May 2, 2015 -> 07:43 PM)
If he ran as an independent, would he actually get invited to the debates? Nope.

 

Hell, in Ohio, the Democrat couldn't even debate the incumbent governor. There aren't a lot of avenues for access to these things without overwhelming demand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Brian @ May 2, 2015 -> 07:43 PM)
If he ran as an independent, would he actually get invited to the debates? Nope.

He's extremely likely to get my vote in the primary and I would not vote for him in the general as an independent. I'd be furious with him for trying that after living through 2000 and the disastrous aftermath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 2, 2015 -> 09:26 PM)
He's extremely likely to get my vote in the primary and I would not vote for him in the general as an independent. I'd be furious with him for trying that after living through 2000 and the disastrous aftermath.

 

That's not really his MO. If he lost in the primary, he'd just go back to the Senate where he can have a day to day impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ May 3, 2015 -> 08:51 PM)
That's not really his MO. If he lost in the primary, he'd just go back to the Senate where he can have a day to day impact.

 

He's got my primary vote at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Potential candidate for the Republican nomination and current Senator Lindsey Graham declares war on the word "the"

 

"Everything that starts with 'Al' in the Middle East is bad news," Graham said at a dinner in Boston on Monday with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, according to investigative journalist Uri Blau.

 

Graham was referencing the Arabic word for "the."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody is allowing for the possibility that Lindsey Graham knew what he was saying and was just using figurative language to explain that he thinks the entire Middle East is bad news (except for Farsi- and Hindi-speaking parts, I suppose)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jake @ May 6, 2015 -> 12:31 PM)
Nobody is allowing for the possibility that Lindsey Graham knew what he was saying and was just using figurative language to explain that he thinks the entire Middle East is bad news (except for Farsi- and Hindi-speaking parts, I suppose)

Which is why he wants to bomb and occupy all of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Apr 30, 2015 -> 11:31 AM)
I know, just wishful thinking on my part. I'm never going to fit into American politics because I like several of Sanders' positions, but I like a lot of Rand Paul's positions as well.

Britain's elections yesterday illustrate one of the pitfalls of a multiparty first-past-the-post system. The Conservatives got about 37% of the vote, but they'll control pretty close to 50% of the government. UKIP received substantially more votes than SNP (the Scottish independence party), but will have many fewer seats in parliament. There are alternatives to FPTP (instant runoff, proportional representation), and our own system has some issues (e.g. Democrats collectively received a few million more votes for House than Republicans in 2012), but other systems have issues as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...