2016 U.S. Presidential Elections: The Circus Is In Full Swing

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Slev said:
they hear socialist, they think of the reds
Click to expand...
I don't really think that's true. The 'Red Scare' substantially dwindled when the soviet union dissolved. Without  aggressive communist expansion or the risk of a domino effect, there is not much reason to fear a communist takeover. I think the aversion to socialism is more based on it's association with Europe, and a broader suspicion of government in general.

I think where Bernie has an advantage, and any hope of winning, is in his authenticity and clearly defined values. To me, and I imagine most people, Hillary just looks like every other political manikin. So far, she has displayed no substance, no course of action, and no meaningful values. Everything has said so far is just empty rhetoric, and I think people will start to become disenfranchised with her.
Slev said:
Republican who can paint himself as a moderate
Click to expand...
I think this is where Bernie also has an advantage. The Republican field has gone so far right, that even Bernie now looks moderate. Nutcases like Cruz and Trump stir up enough attention to influence the whole party's image. This also continues to drive the political polarization that created and feeds Bernie's voter base.
 
Most of the people I know (who have an opinion on the matter) think, more or less, that socialism works in Europe (sometimes singling out specific countries) but have little faith in its implementation in the US.
 
Cruz and Trump will likely be gone by or soon after the first Republican primary. Counting on them to make Sanders more popular is a pipe dream, much like supporting Sanders in general.
 
I'm not sure who will actually run for the Republicans, but I guarantee it will be a more moderate Republican because as conservative as the party has become, their leadership is still smart enough to run a more moderate candidate.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

Primarily because Bush won more electoral votes. Basically it came down to who had the popular (and therefore electoral) votes in Florida. There's a chance Gore won Florida, but because Jeb was the governor, he stopped the vote counting when Bush was the apparent winner. This went to the Supreme Court which ruled it was allowed.

TL;DR on the fiasco: The electoral college is a **** show and anyone who's fool enough to vote for another ****ing Bush is an inbred moron.
 
Slev said:
kurczak said:
If you refuse to vote for a socialist "on principle", it's because you really don't like socialism and socialist policies. Which is a policy concern. There's nothing incoherent or close-minded about it.
Click to expand...

No, in America Socialist = Communist. Most Americans have no idea what a real socialist candidate stands for, they hear socialist, they think of the reds. Even in 2015, that's what they're thinking, "I ain't voting for no commie bastard."
Click to expand...

Shockingly, most people have no time for or interest in the largely academic differences between the two. Say what you will about the extreme right, but at least they are not constantly redefining their key words like "You see, that wasn't really fascism, that was actually state bolshevik capitalism, what I have in mind is more like syndicalist-direct-action-democratic-liberal-fascism that really respects all human rights. All criticism is therefore invalid and everyone who is scared of fascists is a close minded ****. Like omg lol, this so WW2 mentality. Get over it, grampa."
 
Mmm, I'd say Sanders' socialist policies are really just a particular response to America's problems regarding wealth inequality and such. "Socialism" is associated with socialist ideology, but Sanders strikes me as a populist more than anything else. American socialism has a history of being grassroots, populist, and purely focused on economic issues.

Unlike our conception of what socialiss are, Sanders to me does a good job of representing America — definitely more so than Obama or Hillary Clinton do. He has American sensibility.
 
kurczak said:
Say what you will about the extreme right, but at least they are not constantly redefining their key words like "You see, that wasn't really fascism, that was actually state bolshevik capitalism, what I have in mind is more like syndicalist-direct-action-democratic-liberal-fascism that really respects all human rights. All criticism is therefore invalid and everyone who is scared of fascists is a close minded ****. Like omg lol, this so WW2 mentality. Get over it, grampa."
Click to expand...


The difference is that the "right" in America is largely libertarian and socially conservative, and don't identify or share many beliefs with fascists at all. There's never been a libertarian state for people to criticise the grassroots ideology with because "libertarian state" is an oxymoron, and the social conservative part is subjective to an extent and can't effectively be criticised.
 
Yeah sure, but I was speaking more globally and about actual real far-right like neo-nazis and stuff, not your average religious right in USA or some True Finns or Front National. They embrace their legacy and roll with it. The extreme left on the other hand engages in an endless loop of "No true Scotsman" and "This time it's different" producing a bizarre number of sects à la Judean People's Front and People's Front of Judea.

From - admittedly the little - I know about him, I don't think Sanders is an actual socialist as in an advocate of (total) socialization of means of production. Why he chooses to identify as something he is not and as something that decreases his chances is beyond me.
 
kurczak said:
The extreme left on the other hand engages in an endless loop of "No true Scotsman" and "This time it's different".
Click to expand...

Those people aren't true lefties.

kurczak said:
Yeah sure, but I was speaking more globally and about actual real far-right like neo-nazis and stuff, not your average religious right in USA or some True Finns or Front National.
Click to expand...

That's because in the eyes of a Neo Nazi, Hitler did everything they wanted and adhered quite closely to their ideology for the most part, and the country was fairly (if superficially) successful under him. On the other hand nobody except the edgiest of teens calls themselves a "neo-Stalinist" or thinks the Cultural Revolution was a good idea, as those regimes were haphazard messes in haphazard countries. Extreme Right governments are simply more stable than Extreme Left ones because to be the latter you have to change a lot more.
 
Please vote for Bernie. It's your only chance to get some distance from the billionaire oligarchy and get something that resembles a democracy
 
How about the US abolishes its two party state and establish a proper democracy that actually represents the voters political views?
 
You'd first have to get rid of the first-past-the-post voting system that says: "this party won in this state and gets ALL THE SEATS" instead of representing minority parties from each state respectively. Heck, if the democrats get 49% in a state and republicans get 51%, the latter gets 100% representation. Obviously it's not democratic at all.
 
Mixedpotatoes said:
Please vote for Bernie. It's your only chance to get some distance from the billionaire oligarchy and get something that resembles a democracy
Click to expand...
Bernie is great, yes. But Jim Webb has similar economic policies, is more acceptable to the wide electorate, and doesn't buy into the leftist identity politics.

Of course, right now Bernie has the best chance at beating the Clinton machine. Just "the only chance" is what I'm disagreeing with.
 
I have to guess that some of you guys are very unfamiliar with the primary season election cycle. The first primary (the Iowa Caucus) is not until February 1st, 2016. That's still more than 6 months away. In that time we can expect any number of candidacies to rise and fall as the various candidates announce their candidacies and commit various gaffes. Clinton is, right now, the presumptive nominee for the Democrats. What this means is simply that people believe that she has the best chances of winning the primary right now. Of course, they said the same thing about her the last time around, in 2008. Between now and the first primary lots of things can happen. I wouldn't consider any strong performance now by any candidate to be a solid indicator of later performance, especially for some of the more fringe candidates (and, like it or note, Sanders is fringe by American political standards). His campaign so far is fairly similar to that of Howard Dean's awhile back, in which he enjoys a spectacularly quick rise followed by an equally spectacular fall. This fall will be attributed to something most likely fairly innocuous (the Howard Dean raptor yell, in his case), but it actuality will really just be about his support snapping back to its usual level. In fact, I would say that Sanders will be lucky to enjoy as much success as Dean did - although they have similar politics, Dean was a bit more moderate.

In other words, if you think Sanders has the best chance of beating Clinton, I would say you're betting on the wrong horse, and way too soon at that.
 
jacobhinds said:
Gestricius said:
How about the US abolishes its two party state and establish a proper democracy that actually represents the voters political views?
Click to expand...

That would require all generational voters to suddenly die.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't be such a shame... :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Let's be honest the multiplayer here is underdone
2
Replies
21
Views
518
Seleucid
MP Please make Chamber Blocking Viable for Multiplayer
Replies
2
Views
89
k86
Open Remove Debasement or adjust the non-culture penalty.
Replies
0
Views
18
Doofus
Back
Top Bottom