Wintreath Regional Community
The Frozen Village of Fourneshore - Chats and Discussions => Howling Wind Tavern - General Discussion => Topic started by: Wintermoot on October 02, 2015, 03:33:45 PM
-
This is an article from a few months ago, but I still found it very interesting: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/2016-predictions-117554
In a way it's kind of sad...a year and a half prior to the presidental election, before we even know who the candidates are, we're able to predict which party will win it in a majority of states with near-absolute certainty. You can even say that when it comes to winning the election, the actual candidates matter only marginally...so long as they're not an absolute mess they're guaranteed to win the states loyal to their parties. It wasn't always like this...nationally this only became a thing starting in the 2000 election, but in some states it's been longer...Texas hasn't supported a Democratic candidate for president since 1976 (Jimmy Carter).
I suppose it's just a sign of a polarized nation.
-
Were I an American, I honestly don't know who I would support. This may surprise people, but I believe abortion to be murder, and thus the Democrats have an uphill battle already.
On the other hand, America clearly needs far stricter gun laws, and should definitely be nudged to be more aware of the environment.
Basically, with your strange two-party system, I wouldn't feel comfortable voting for either party.
-
The recent controversy about Planned Parenthood aside, abortion actually doesn't factor much in elections...abortion was approved by the Supreme Court so it's pretty much out of the purview of the other branches minus a Constitutional amendment.
I'm curious though...what's your stance on abortions in cases where the pregnancy risks the health of the mother? Or if the pregnancy is the result of a rape?
-
I'm a catholic, I have been for as long as I've lived and I do honestly believe in my church. Personally, I'm against abortion. All the scientists and doctors who say that its not a life yet are just missing the point. In terms of rape, incest and life of the mother, I have no problems. However, legally speaking (here in Singapore and back in the States), I support a women's right to get an abortion if she so chooses because I believe in separation of church and state.
As for the American system, this strange 2 party system you have is better than our 1 party all the time always forever system Singapore has adopted. And if I was American (which I could be), I would vote for the democrats.
-
In the case of incest, particularly between very close family members, I believe it's merciful to allow abortion rather than allow the child to grow up with severe disabilities, but I get why you ask about rape and when the pregnancy endangers the mother.
In the case of rape, I still don't think it should be aborted if the pregnancy doesn't endanger the mother, and if it isn't the result of incest. I sympathise that the mother could possibly not love the child, but why not give the child up for adoption then? It goes without saying that if one is forced to choose between the life of the mother and the child, the mother should have the choice of whether to keep the pregnancy and risk her life or not.
I should point out I'm not against it based on religious reasons. Rather philosophical and actual scientific reasons. Allowing abortion in the case of rape muddies the waters, because it sets a double standard.
And at North: I honestly prefer your system in Singapore. It is not perfect, but I think even an American would be hard pressed to say that their system is better than the one in Singapore, without getting philosophical instead of practical.
-
You summed up my own thoughts pretty well right there, @Laurentus. I happen to oppose it for religious reasons, but I'd but just as set against for purely scientific and philosophical reasons as well.
-
In the case of incest, particularly between very close family members, I believe it's merciful to allow abortion rather than allow the child to grow up with severe disabilities, but I get why you ask about rape and when the pregnancy endangers the mother.
In the case of rape, I still don't think it should be aborted if the pregnancy doesn't endanger the mother, and if it isn't the result of incest. I sympathise that the mother could possibly not love the child, but why not give the child up for adoption then? It goes without saying that if one is forced to choose between the life of the mother and the child, the mother should have the choice of whether to keep the pregnancy and risk her life or not.
I should point out I'm not against it based on religious reasons. Rather philosophical and actual scientific reasons. Allowing abortion in the case of rape muddies the waters, because it sets a double standard.
And at North: I honestly prefer your system in Singapore. It is not perfect, but I think even an American would be hard pressed to say that their system is better than the one in Singapore, without getting philosophical instead of practical.
I mostly ask because that issue has spelled the end of many Republicans' political careers...not necessarily because they opposed it in cases of rape, but because they then went on to make inflammatory comments about rape itself, such as Todd Akon claiming that women couldn't get pregnant from 'legitimate rape'...costing him a Senate Seat in 2012.
I'm not sure I agree with you, if only because of the state of foster care system in the country. Because it's not nearly as visible an issue as abortion, there aren't many groups championing that cause, and in may cases the system doesn't have enough resources. To make things even worse, Americans would rather adopt from other countries, and the only reason that foreign adoptions are going down is because countries are placing obstacles against American adoptions. Russia has even banned Americans from adopting from there. I can't help but wonder the sort of life kids can live there...I'm sure it works out in most cases, but how many of them feel unwanted or aren't being given the attention they need?
If adoption is going to be the alternative to abortion, then it needs to be more of an issue...it handles 400,000 children as it is, and we need more groups that will champion those causes and raise the profile and importance of the system.
-
And at North: I honestly prefer your system in Singapore. It is not perfect, but I think even an American would be hard pressed to say that their system is better than the one in Singapore, without getting philosophical instead of practical.
As someone who has been in both Singapore and the US, I disagree. Unless you are referring to the Westminster system in general.
-
Yeah our adoption and foster care system is thoroughly fucked up. I honestly think that if a mother doesn't want a child, but would end up putting it in the foster care system, it would be more merciful to abort it at this point. (Further while I am neutral on abortion I do support a woman's right to get one, even if I was against it I would support the right to choose...)
-
I'd definitely vote for the Democrats in this election... the only Republican of any repute is Kasich. Personally I'm a Bernie Sanders guy :D . Income inequality and climate change are by far the most pressing matters in the United States right now, especially after the recent Supreme Court ruling. :)
-
But would you still vote for Hillary Clinton over any Republican (except Kasich perhaps)?
-
Re: abortion-
The key thing everyone leaves out of the abortion debate is the concept of bodily autonomy. See, if your cousin is dying and needs a kidney transplant, and yours could save him, and you don't need both kidneys...nobody can still force you to give him your kidney.
But what pro-lifers argue is that a woman has to give up her entire body for a child she does not want, that will permanently alter her hormones, her brain composition, and her physical structure (did you know pregnancy literally forces your abs to split down the middle? yeaaaah). Also, even healthy mothers-to-be can suffer sudden complications and die, or be permanently disabled. It happens to millions of women every year. Pregnancy is the most lethal endeavor most women ever go through; moms are absolutely hardcore.
And then, once the baby is had, who takes care of it? The mother, almost always with no help from the people who forced her to risk her life carrying it for around nine months, who has had her life completely and irrevocably changed against her will.
Either that, or the kid gets put up for adoption; chances are if they're not a healthy, white baby they're not getting adopted, so they rot in the system until they're grown, wondering what they did to deserve being abandoned. So, effectively, you can ruin two lives for the price of one (barring twins, etc.)!
TL;DR a pregnant person is at way more risk than a kidney donor for long-term health impacts in physical, mental, and emotional areas, and yet we cannot force someone to donate a kidney so why should anyone be allowed to force someone to bear a child?
Back on topic:
I'd vote for Jill Stein but she essentially has zero chance of winning. Casting my vote for Bernie because he's the next best thing.
I'd still vote Hillary over any Republican, just because this election is less about the presidency and more about who gets appointed to the Supreme Court, tbh. The Justices have a lot more impact in many ways than the president.
-
But would you still vote for Hillary Clinton over any Republican (except Kasich perhaps)?
Yeah, I'd vote for Clinton above any Republican (except Kasich, yeah) any day. The rest of the Republican field seems like a bunch of bumbling baboons, especially considering that the top three want to make Mexico build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border (Trump), declare war on Islam and get rid of separation of church and state (Carson), and try to be CEO of the country after driving Hewlett Packard into the ground by merging with Compaq (Fiorina).
-
Bodily autonomy... What about the baby's? By that same logic, an abortion is far worse than carrying the child to term. Ending a life completely happens to interfere a little more with bodily autonomy than hormonal shifts and physiological changes. And as soon as the two gametes become one zygote, there are two distinct bodies involved, not just the mother's.
With regards to Supreme Court justices, keep in mind who appoints them. Granted, one of them needs to die or step down before we get a new one, but it's still the President that makes the call.
Oh, crap, I just realized that I can actually vote in this presidential election. Whelp, guess I'd better start paying closer attention to the candidates...
-
Bodily autonomy... What about the baby's? By that same logic, an abortion is far worse than carrying the child to term. Ending a life completely happens to interfere a little more with bodily autonomy than hormonal shifts and physiological changes. And as soon as the two gametes become one zygote, there are two distinct bodies involved, not just the mother's.
With regards to Supreme Court justices, keep in mind who appoints them. Granted, one of them needs to die or step down before we get a new one, but it's still the President that makes the call.
Oh, crap, I just realized that I can actually vote in this presidential election. Whelp, guess I'd better start paying closer attention to the candidates...
Colberius, what you've just argued is that the baby's bodily autonomy should override the pregnant persons... And that's just not how bodily autonomy works, no ones overrides anyone's...
The pregnant person is deciding not to use their body to support something else and that's within the bounds of bodily autonomy... It doesn't override the baby's at all...
But when you say that the decision as to whether the pregnant person can do that is up to the baby? That's overriding the pregnant person's autonomy and therefore inappropriate...
-
I could have worded my point better. Let me attempt to explain my reasoning.
Bodily autonomy says that it is the mother's right to choose whether or not to let her body to be used for the development of a fetus. A fetus is a different person from the mother, so her autonomy does not include anything that is not her own body. Therefore, because the child and mother are not the same person, a paradox is created. If a mother has the right to decide whether or not to allow the use of her body in this way, she simultaneously lacks the right to harm the fetus without its consent. Ergo, the fetus cannot be harmed. D you at least see where I'm coming from?
Now to address several other issues, just to clarify my feelings on this matter. I believe that men need to be held more accountable for ensuring that contraception is being used during sex. Additionally, contraception should be more readily available and advocated. As you've already learned, I oppose abortion in all instances except life of the mother. At the same time, I believe that there needs to be greater support for those mothers who do not wish to carry the child to term. Any health costs incurred as a result of carrying the child to term (NOT general costs of pregnancy) should be covered. And the entire American foster and adoption system needs an overhaul, there's no question about that.
-
I could have worded my point better. Let me attempt to explain my reasoning.
Bodily autonomy says that it is the mother's right to choose whether or not to let her body to be used for the development of a fetus. A fetus is a different person from the mother, so her autonomy does not include anything that is not her own body. Therefore, because the child and mother are not the same person, a paradox is created. If a mother has the right to decide whether or not to allow the use of her body in this way, she simultaneously lacks the right to harm the fetus without its consent. Ergo, the fetus cannot be harmed. D you at least see where I'm coming from?
Now to address several other issues, just to clarify my feelings on this matter. I believe that men need to be held more accountable for ensuring that contraception is being used during sex. Additionally, contraception should be more readily available and advocated. As you've already learned, I oppose abortion in all instances except life of the mother. At the same time, I believe that there needs to be greater support for those mothers who do not wish to carry the child to term. Any health costs incurred as a result of carrying the child to term (NOT general costs of pregnancy) should be covered. And the entire American foster and adoption system needs an overhaul, there's no question about that.
I see your theoretical argument, but I don't agree with it. But I respect that you have your own opinion and that it's unlikely that I have the ability nor time to change it to mine.
I agree with your other points though. I'd like to add in that I also believe Sex Education classes should be better taught or taught at all to further some of those goals and just in general.
-
Colberius, I know the president makes the call on the Justices, which is why I refuse to let any Republican in power if I can do anything about it at all.
Also, actually, a fetus is not a person. You're only considered a living person as long as you have brain activity (hence why we do CPR when your heart stops and you're only pronounced dead after it's impossible to revive you and your brain has shut down entirely), and fetuses don't have brain activity until around 12 weeks, which is after when more than 90% of abortions are performed anyway. Abortions done later than that are pretty rare, and usually done in instances where the pregnant person has access issues that make earlier ones impossible, are clinically depressed and/or are on drugs, or are domestic violence victims, all of which provide reasonable exception (especially given how limited abortion access still is :/). So.
There's no paradox insofar as human rights to bodily autonomy are concerned.
I should also note that forcing people to bear children is a (disgustingly common) form of abuse known as reproductive coercion, and ensuring that abuse victims have no way to recover from that form of violence is unacceptable to me. Also, outlawing abortions doesn't stop abortions; it just stops safe abortions. That also puts people at risk.
You'll note I'm using "people" here; I know at least one trans man, personally, who has been threatened with sexual violence and forced reproduction to "prove [he's] really a woman". I can only hope that it was an isolated incident, but the point still stands that this is another angle that must be considered, and one that your suggested measures don't cover.
Which leads me back to the topic of party loyalty and why I'm not so much pro-Democrat as I am anti-Republican. I mean, which party is responsible for abstinence-only sex ed and restricting access to contraceptives? (To add to that, we could talk about voter suppression and all the other fun racist things the party is known for, but I think my point has been made well enough.)
-
I was reading an article about Ben Carson and his brilliant idea of how he would survive a mass shooting! Just rush the gunman, cause that always works, right? Seriously, Ben Carson reminds me of the kind of guy that would yell "EVERYONE RUSH THE GUNMAN!" as he ran to the exit. God help us all if he becomes the next president.
Brave Sir Carson ran away. Bravely ran away, away. When danger reared its ugly head, Brave Sir Carson turned and fled, Yes, brave Sir Carson turned about and gallantly he chickened out, Bravely taking to his feet he beat a very brave retreat, Bravest of the brave, Sir Carson!
-
I approve of the Monty Python joke, North. British comedy is the best! :)
I only regret that I have but one like to give for this!
On a more serious note, Ben Carson scares the crap out of me. The fact that the man is so hateful and so stupid and still considered a viable candidate for arguably the most important political office in the world is absurd. I mean, the guy practically wants to wage war against all Muslims, because they aren't Christian. Also, he thinks that the Holocaust would have been harder if the Jews had guns. Declaring that they could have somehow held off the Nazis with one or two personal firearms is utterly absurd.
-
Don't worry, they're Republicans. I don't see them nominating a black person for president. :P
-
I approve of the Monty Python joke, North. British comedy is the best! :)
I only regret that I have but one like to give for this!
On a more serious note, Ben Carson scares the crap out of me. The fact that the man is so hateful and so stupid and still considered a viable candidate for arguably the most important political office in the world is absurd. I mean, the guy practically wants to wage war against all Muslims, because they aren't Christian. Also, he thinks that the Holocaust would have been harder if the Jews had guns. Declaring that they could have somehow held off the Nazis with one or two personal firearms is utterly absurd.
Hehe, thought you might like that one, SirRobin.
And I agree. Donald Trump (so long as he never gets within 30 feet of the presidency) amuses me. Ben Carson is just crazy and that is scary.
-
Did anyone catch the Democratic debate? I skipped the Republican debates because none of the candidates have interested me at all, but as someone who came into this supporting Sanders and feeling ambivalent to Clinton, I wanted to watch them directly debate each other. I think it was a fascinating debate that was overall good for most of the candidates...my thoughts about each one, in case anyone else watched:
Hillary Clinton
Overall I thought she was poised, animated, and enthusiastic, and that alone will probably be to her advantage. I thought she did best on foreign policy...she certainly seemed like someone that had been Secretary of State, and should she win the nomination her views will probably be most in line with independent voters. On the downside, I don't think she handled the accusation that she'll say anything to get elected (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/10/13/anderson_cooper_confronts_hillary_clinton_on_flip-flops_will_you_say_anything_to_get_elected.html) well and she played the gender card too often...a brief mention that she'd be the first woman president is fine, but when asked how her Administration would be different from Obama's I don't think they meant the difference in their policies, not their genders.
Bernie Sanders
Overall I thought he more than held his own and definitely had the best line of the night (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/sanders-says-americans-are-over-clintons-damn-emails-n444061). As someone who is running as much on his own character and integrity as the issues, defending his chief rival for the nomination to her obvious appreciation probably helps him. He also ably defended against an accusation that he 'abandoned Hispanics at the alter' by not supporting the immigration reform bill in 2007. He less ably handled an accusation that he voted to give gun manufacturers legal immunity from lawsuits, and that's an area he's probably going to need to work on.
Martin O'Malley
As the main also ran invited as a seat warmer, I thought he did a decent job...he introduced himself and was able to tout his accomplishments as Mayor of Balitmore and Governor of Maryland, and he got to mention his plan for green energy by 2050 a dozen times. Also got in a subtle dig at the DNC Chairwoman over the number of debates, who he's been feuding with on the issue. He probably did the best he could given the circumstances, and the obvious fact that he and some others were invited mostly as seat-warmers who were given little time.
Jim Webb
He's someone that gets things done and complains about not getting as much time (true enough). I think he mentioned China and the South China Sea...I got nothing else.
Lincoln Chafee
Did...did he really say that he voted to repeal major banking regulations without knowing what he was voting on? And...did he really try to justify it by saying 94 others voted for it?
Overall, I'm still most enthusiastic about Bernie Sanders...I think we need politician that not only say nice things, but stand behind them and actually take action by them, but I'm a little less ambivalent about Hillary if she ends up getting the nomination.
-
I don't think I like the debate's formatting tbh. Basically, they said whenever someone said your name you get time. It really naturally favors the frontrunners, because their names get mentioned more. Adds a popularity contest minigame into the debate that I don't care for.
Hillary was obviously the most well accomplished, prepared, and polished debater, I would say. She had a certain grace and poise that only comes with practice. Which makes sense, former secretary of state and all. She answered the questions so loudly and fluidly that you sort of forgot the parts of the question she didn't answer, though that got called out a few times.
So, Hillary, I think had the fewest fuck-ups?
Bernie got a little flummoxed a few times, but he definitely held his own. If he really is passionate and sincere, then it shines through. I liked how he shut down the 'Hilary's Emails' conversation, in Cooper's face I might add. Overall, well practiced, well spoken, I like this guy.
O' Malley, might stick around for another debate probably. He smiles a lot. Didn't see much of him because of the rules.
The guy who was the only candidate who was a Mayor, a Senator, and a Governor? I kinda felt a little sorry for him, he looked so sad like he was about to cry the entire time :(. Maybe he'll go back to being a Republican after the primaries.
Webb. Oh, Jimmy Webb. I love Jimmy Webb. He only got to talk for like 5 minutes, because of the rules, but he sure made them count with tidbits to the effect of "I am not getting enough ttime!!!", "I need more time!", and "The enemy I am most proud of making is the guy who threw a grenade at me in 'nam. I plastered the inside of his bunker with bloody pieces of him".
-
Gotta say, someone else summed up my views on the whole thing already in a much more eloquent fashion: "Hillary wants the presidency. Bernie wants CHANGE."
And tbh Hillary seemed stuck on three generic kinds of responses; "I'm a woman", "[distracting talk with relatively little substance]", or "Yeah, what Bernie said".
The other three were, as stated, seat-warmers, and honestly O'Malley's record as "tough on crime" Mayor of Baltimore (that some of y'all may remember as that place with one of the most corrupt police forces in the nation), well...I don't think that did him any favors.
-
I could have worded my point better. Let me attempt to explain my reasoning.
Bodily autonomy says that it is the mother's right to choose whether or not to let her body to be used for the development of a fetus. A fetus is a different person from the mother, so her autonomy does not include anything that is not her own body. Therefore, because the child and mother are not the same person, a paradox is created. If a mother has the right to decide whether or not to allow the use of her body in this way, she simultaneously lacks the right to harm the fetus without its consent. Ergo, the fetus cannot be harmed. D you at least see where I'm coming from?
Now to address several other issues, just to clarify my feelings on this matter. I believe that men need to be held more accountable for ensuring that contraception is being used during sex. Additionally, contraception should be more readily available and advocated. As you've already learned, I oppose abortion in all instances except life of the mother. At the same time, I believe that there needs to be greater support for those mothers who do not wish to carry the child to term. Any health costs incurred as a result of carrying the child to term (NOT general costs of pregnancy) should be covered. And the entire American foster and adoption system needs an overhaul, there's no question about that.
Oooooo is there an abortion debate going on?
Or did we try to shut that down?
I think the paradox mentioned can be resolved by adding that a fetus requires the use of its mother's digestive, respiratory, circulatory, and pretty much every other vital system in order to sustain its vital life functions. Even if the mother does not have the right to harm the fetus, they do have the right to withdraw or deny consent to the use of their bodily resources. The fact that this will kill the fetus is not, with all due respect to the sanctity of human life, the mother's responsibility.
You may not force me to give you blood, even if doing so would cost me nothing and save your life. You may not force a woman to donate their body to a fetus, which can cost them their life.
On a side note, a deceased citizen of the USA who is not an organ donor may not have their organs used post-mortem, even if it would save one life or many. Outlawing abortion would give mothers fewer rights to bodily autonomy than a corpse.
:D
Hopefully this is not too inflammatory.. :-[
-
Did anyone catch the Democratic debate? I skipped the Republican debates because none of the candidates have interested me at all, but as someone who came into this supporting Sanders and feeling ambivalent to Clinton, I wanted to watch them directly debate each other. I think it was a fascinating debate that was overall good for most of the candidates...my thoughts about each one, in case anyone else watched:
Hillary Clinton
Overall I thought she was poised, animated, and enthusiastic, and that alone will probably be to her advantage. I thought she did best on foreign policy...she certainly seemed like someone that had been Secretary of State, and should she win the nomination her views will probably be most in line with independent voters. On the downside, I don't think she handled the accusation that she'll say anything to get elected (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/10/13/anderson_cooper_confronts_hillary_clinton_on_flip-flops_will_you_say_anything_to_get_elected.html) well and she played the gender card too often...a brief mention that she'd be the first woman president is fine, but when asked how her Administration would be different from Obama's I don't think they meant the difference in their policies, not their genders.
Bernie Sanders
Overall I thought he more than held his own and definitely had the best line of the night (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/sanders-says-americans-are-over-clintons-damn-emails-n444061). As someone who is running as much on his own character and integrity as the issues, defending his chief rival for the nomination to her obvious appreciation probably helps him. He also ably defended against an accusation that he 'abandoned Hispanics at the alter' by not supporting the immigration reform bill in 2007. He less ably handled an accusation that he voted to give gun manufacturers legal immunity from lawsuits, and that's an area he's probably going to need to work on.
Martin O'Malley
As the main also ran invited as a seat warmer, I thought he did a decent job...he introduced himself and was able to tout his accomplishments as Mayor of Balitmore and Governor of Maryland, and he got to mention his plan for green energy by 2050 a dozen times. Also got in a subtle dig at the DNC Chairwoman over the number of debates, who he's been feuding with on the issue. He probably did the best he could given the circumstances, and the obvious fact that he and some others were invited mostly as seat-warmers who were given little time.
Jim Webb
He's someone that gets things done and complains about not getting as much time (true enough). I think he mentioned China and the South China Sea...I got nothing else.
Lincoln Chafee
Did...did he really say that he voted to repeal major banking regulations without knowing what he was voting on? And...did he really try to justify it by saying 94 others voted for it?
Overall, I'm still most enthusiastic about Bernie Sanders...I think we need politician that not only say nice things, but stand behind them and actually take action by them, but I'm a little less ambivalent about Hillary if she ends up getting the nomination.
Spolier alert, man! I was going to watch that :]
-
I think the paradox mentioned can be resolved by adding that a fetus requires the use of its mother's digestive, respiratory, circulatory, and pretty much every other vital system in order to sustain its vital life functions. Even if the mother does not have the right to harm the fetus, they do have the right to withdraw or deny consent to the use of their bodily resources. The fact that this will kill the fetus is not, with all due respect to the sanctity of human life, the mother's responsibility.
You may not force me to give you blood, even if doing so would cost me nothing and save your life. You may not force a woman to donate their body to a fetus, which can cost them their life.
On a side note, a deceased citizen of the USA who is not an organ donor may not have their organs used post-mortem, even if it would save one life or many. Outlawing abortion would give mothers fewer rights to bodily autonomy than a corpse.
:D
Hopefully this is not too inflammatory.. :-[
Not too inflammatory for me, at least. :)
However, it also doesn't resolve anything for me. In my opinion, when a person makes a decision which directly results in the death of another person, and they were aware of the consequences, that's murder. (You may not agree with my definition of person, but you have to admit that the fetus isn't part of the mother, so it's at least not the same person.) For clarification, I don't mean possible consequences, like the mother maybe missing out on a better job or having health issues because she couldn't get an abortion, but guaranteed consequences, like the fetus dying as a result of an abortion.
Also, you make a very valid point about organ donation, but I believe that post-mortem organ donation should be compulsory. So that's merely another issue that I think could be corrected. :P
-
Not too inflammatory for me, at least. :)
However, it also doesn't resolve anything for me. In my opinion, when a person makes a decision which directly results in the death of another person, and they were aware of the consequences, that's murder. (You may not agree with my definition of person, but you have to admit that the fetus isn't part of the mother, so it's at least not the same person.) For clarification, I don't mean possible consequences, like the mother maybe missing out on a better job or having health issues because she couldn't get an abortion, but guaranteed consequences, like the fetus dying as a result of an abortion.
Also, you make a very valid point about organ donation, but I believe that post-mortem organ donation should be compulsory. So that's merely another issue that I think could be corrected. :P
Sorry, I think this is where we part ways in terms of opinion. When I'm evaluating risks to myself, I have every right to account for possible risks to my life and welfare. I have every right to the control of my person and my organs.
If you wake up tomorrow with your blood being transfused for 9 months to a person you don't know so they can live at the cost of your quality of life, you have the right to pull the plug even if it will kill them. If you don't agree with that, then as I said, we have parted ways in terms of opinion.
But if we could carry this on in another topic or by PM that would probably be better, since this topic is "US Presidential Election: The Electoral College and Party Loyalty".
-
I agree on the debate format...I mean, those three don't have a chance in hell at the nomination and they were there only to fill the stage, but if you're going to invite them you should at least try to make sure they're part of the debate too. And the rules where someone mentioned can respond...of course this is going to be to Hillary's advantage, cause she's the front-runner and everyone's going to be out to contrast themselves with her. That being said, I felt of the three only Martin O'Malley utilized the time he had well, and I don't think that'll be enough long-term.
But with Hillary's friend as the Chairwoman of the DNC, we're lucky to be getting debates at all. It's obvious that the Democratic party leadership feels the need to protect Hillary from debates as much as possible.
-
I agree on the debate format...I mean, those three don't have a chance in hell at the nomination and they were there only to fill the stage, but if you're going to invite them you should at least try to make sure they're part of the debate too. And the rules where someone mentioned can respond...of course this is going to be to Hillary's advantage, cause she's the front-runner and everyone's going to be out to contrast themselves with her. That being said, I felt of the three only Martin O'Malley utilized the time he had well, and I don't think that'll be enough long-term.
But with Hillary's friend as the Chairwoman of the DNC, we're lucky to be getting debates at all. It's obvious that the Democratic party leadership feels the need to protect Hillary from debates as much as possible.
Considering that it was the debates that pretty much doomed her in 2008, they are right that she needs to be kept as far away from debates as humanly possible.
-
If she can't manage against other Democrats though, how will she manage against Republicans in debates?
-
If she can't manage against other Democrats though, how will she manage against Republicans in debates?
Exactly. I've always thought she was a weak candidate.
-
If she wins the nomination, she may be fortunate that the entire Republican field is so weak...I can't imagine any of them winning a debate against anyone with a brain.
-
If she wins the nomination, she may be fortunate that the entire Republican field is so weak...I can't imagine any of them winning a debate against anyone with a brain.
A couple might. John Kasich can present himself as a reasonable moderate and can win a debate. Rick Santorum, although I disagree with him on almost anything even though I'm a Roman Catholic like him, is a damn good debater. Jeb Bush could win a debate against her by being vaguely optimistic and not sounding so much like his brother. The list goes on. Shes not as good a candidate as she thinks, shes never had a tough race to fight exectp for that time she LOST.
-
Not too inflammatory for me, at least. :)
However, it also doesn't resolve anything for me. In my opinion, when a person makes a decision which directly results in the death of another person, and they were aware of the consequences, that's murder. (You may not agree with my definition of person, but you have to admit that the fetus isn't part of the mother, so it's at least not the same person.) For clarification, I don't mean possible consequences, like the mother maybe missing out on a better job or having health issues because she couldn't get an abortion, but guaranteed consequences, like the fetus dying as a result of an abortion.
Also, you make a very valid point about organ donation, but I believe that post-mortem organ donation should be compulsory. So that's merely another issue that I think could be corrected. :P
Sorry, I think this is where we part ways in terms of opinion. When I'm evaluating risks to myself, I have every right to account for possible risks to my life and welfare. I have every right to the control of my person and my organs.
If you wake up tomorrow with your blood being transfused for 9 months to a person you don't know so they can live at the cost of your quality of life, you have the right to pull the plug even if it will kill them. If you don't agree with that, then as I said, we have parted ways in terms of opinion.
But if we could carry this on in another topic or by PM that would probably be better, since this topic is "US Presidential Election: The Electoral College and Party Loyalty".
*raises hand*
While I realise I am continuing to deviate the topic from this threads intent... *shrug*
I would like to request that this debate continue in another thread... while I have not actually said anything towards it in anyway it is something that intrigues and interests me :P ... I have a lot with both sides though tend to lean towards one more than the other... and have found reading different peoples views on this very interesting... so it's safe to say if such sterling display of exchange of thought was confined to PM I would be most let down... :o
As such I may make a topic on it tonight. :P
*coughs*
You can now return to the purpose of this thread, thank you for your time. :)
-
If she wins the nomination, she may be fortunate that the entire Republican field is so weak...I can't imagine any of them winning a debate against anyone with a brain.
A couple might. John Kasich can present himself as a reasonable moderate and can win a debate. Rick Santorum, although I disagree with him on almost anything even though I'm a Roman Catholic like him, is a damn good debater. Jeb Bush could win a debate against her by being vaguely optimistic and not sounding so much like his brother. The list goes on. Shes not as good a candidate as she thinks, shes never had a tough race to fight exectp for that time she LOST.
I believe that Kasich would win the presidency if he won the Republican nomination... which is unlikely because the Republican primaries are all controlled by fanatical maniacs who are convinced that America is being destroyed by Gays, Mexicans and Muslims. They are SO out of touch and SO close to Facism. Their entire primary process seems to be powered by fear and hate.
If they were smart they'd nominate Kasich though, but I doubt they'll nominate a negotiating moderate... the last moderate they nominated for the presidency was Eisenhower. :P
And with regard to the Democratic debate... it was refreshing to see some intelligent people on the stage actually holding a respectful conversation with each other and voters. :)
-
I just heard that Chris Christie and Mike Huckabee just got relegated to the kids table...... hehehehh, hahahahaha, HAHAHAHAHAH!
-
Honestly when it comes to Hillary I just don't feel like Hillary is a good candidate. She has lacked the track record during her time in congress, further AFAIK she supports the TTP/TTIP.
-
Well, I've never thought she was a strong candidate. Shes to insincere sounding, to much like a parody of a politician. I never got the appeal.
-
I wouldn' t go as far as saying that she's a parody of one...although I can definitely see where you could get that from. A lot of people I know seem to be wanting Bernie Sanders and not Hillary where I live...which is interesting as I live in a red state :/
-
I wouldn' t go as far as saying that she's a parody of one...although I can definitely see where you could get that from. A lot of people I know seem to be wanting Burnie Sanders and not Hillary where I live...which is interesting as I live in a red state :/
And my family is from a rather blue state. The only state to have voted for Walter Mondale, in fact.
Also, its Bernie.
-
Sorry, I was typing quickly >.<
-
I think that Sanders would be the best president, yeah.
And North your family is from Minnesota? Best state there is! :D
-
I think that Sanders would be the best president, yeah.
And North your family is from Minnesota? Best state there is! :D
Oh yeah, dontcha know? 'Cause up there we love us some hotdish and lutefisk(the single most disgusting fish I have ever tasted) and we especially love going to Wiscahnsin(I honestly thought that was how you spelt it cause thats how they pronounced it) and hunting in their forests and fishing in their lakes even though we have about a million of each right where we are! Aw jeez though, look at me go on and on, I betcha dont wanna hear about little ole' Minnesota, where seeing a man walking down the street in a parka and shorts when its snowing is typical!
Seriously though, I love Minnesota even if Minnesotans make me laugh forever. Part of the reason I joined here in the first place was because of the great memories I have of Goodhue County. Haven't been back in a while and probably wont be back for a long time, though....
-
That's awesome, North :) I always like meeting people from Minnesota for some reason.
As for the debates, I believe it was O'Malley who said something about needing more debates because a lack of debates would decrease exposure of lesser candidate and disproportionately favour the frontrunner, i.e. Hillary. Speaking of which, it seems funny how the media resigns itself to believing she is the inevitable Democratic nominee, or rather, the only one, and how the press had just begun to notice Samders, and even that's falling. Then again it seems as if maybe internet communities and young college students were the only ones to notice him in the first place.
As someone who will be freshly 18 come election time, I can say I happen to like O'Malley the best because he is well-spoken about the issues, has experience running the city of Baltimore and state of Maryland, and seems to understand the implications of his economic policies without seeming like he wants to drive the country into endless debt or pushing wars to no avail.
However, his nomination is a far cry from happening, so I can give my support to Sanders based on his liberal social policies (including gun rights) and campaign finance reform. If Hillary gets the nomination I don't know who I'd vote for. I'd consider voting Republican due to having become more economically centrist/conservative than before, but their stance on the social issues really irk me. I suppose then that I'd like Rand Paul and John Kasich instead, but both are long shots.
Who knows. I've been trying to keep informed through all the debates (Republican and Democratic) and I have eleven months to decide. I suppose, then, that I also have to decide which state I'll be voting in next November, whether that is my home Wisconsin or the state I move to for college.
That being said, that is kind of important in terms of swing states and party leanings, and it seems as if I'd rather vote in a competitive state because I don't believe in following blindly with the Democrats or otherwise. I have at least somewhat of an advantage/choice in influencing that due to moving in 9 months.
-
Haha, my American neighbour made an interesting comment when I asked him who he'd vote for next year: "I don't know. It's like choosing between HIV and Chlamydia. I might think chlamydia is preferable, but they're both fucking terrible."
How do the Americans among you respond?
-
Haha, my American neighbour made an interesting comment when I asked him who he'd vote for next year: "I don't know. It's like choosing between HIV and Chlamydia. I might think chlamydia is preferable, but they're both fucking terrible."
How do the Americans among you respond?
Personally, I feel the same. The candidates from both sides of the field are equally terrible in my opinion, but because nobody likes to vote overwhelmingly for one of the 3rd parties, it's one of those two sides that we're guaranteed to be stuck with.
The Bush versus Kerry election is an example. Both were equally terrible candidates and there were far better ones in the third parties. But of course with the majority of America being of the "Fuck third parties!" mindset, those candidates never, and still will never, stand a chance against the best looking of the two biggest turds.
-
I don't think Americans necessarily have a fuck third parties attitude...they're just constantly told that voting for a third party will sap votes from 'their' party and make it easier for the other side to win. Some people still feel that Ralph Nader and his third party run siphoned enough votes from Al Gore in Florida to allow Bush to win in 2000.
Edit: Also want to point out that the two main parties have worked together in one area: making it very hard for third parties and independent candidates to even get on the ballot.
-
Your democracy sounds like a sham. Especially since it seems the parties have different ends (or so they claim) but the exact same means.
-
To be honest, I kind of wish that Donald Trump would launch a third party if he fails to win the Republican nomination...not because I agree with him at all, but because he's rich enough and has enough disgruntled supporters to crack the door open for other parties. I think especially in the Republican party there are people so disgusted with it that it would just take one person with enough money and power to split it wide open.
-
I can understand that. Everytime a faction within the ANC breaks off from it and forms a new party (like what has happened with the COPE and EFF) I smile, knowing it weakens the ANC's hold each time. The danger here is that a party like the EFF (basically filled with radicals, racists and blithering idiots) can gain enough support to pose a far more serious threat than the ANC ever could.
-
To be honest, I kind of wish that Donald Trump would launch a third party if he fails to win the Republican nomination...not because I agree with him at all, but because he's rich enough and has enough disgruntled supporters to crack the door open for other parties. I think especially in the Republican party there are people so disgusted with it that it would just take one person with enough money and power to split it wide open.
Probably the Democrats' best case scenario in the short term. It guarantees their candidate a win next year, but in the long term the Republican party might actually become sane enough to field a serious candidate like Kasich.
If the Tea Party was a legitimate "party," Trump would get the nod instantly.
-
@Laurentus, we've had similar radical groups pop up in the past, usually demanding attention for one specific cause or issue. Once these proto-parties develop real platforms and become halfway serious, they get enough attention from the Big Two to convince the majority of their supporters to come back. The main reason third parties
-
I suspect it would start a movement, where eventually even liberal splinter groups would form and governance would depend on coaltions...this way, no one party could stonewall otherwise popular legislation and extremist elements would be relegated to the fringe.
-
The two party system isn't like an informal cultural convention of the USA.. variants of its First Past the Post (FPTP) election system will usually produce exactly 2 major parties. It's a property of the system.
The FPTP system also allows easy mode gerrymandering, allowing a state administration to virtually guarantee that their party will win the most seats in the next congressional election.
Basically, our election system is overly simplistic and easily hackable, and politicians have been happily hacking away at it for generations and it's not in their best interest to change the rules of their game. I wouldn't shy from calling gerrymandering a legal hack, an exploit.. loophole, whatever you want to call it. It means that even more people's votes won't matter, and the only winners are the politicians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
Third parties won't happen in a firmly 2 party FPTP electoral system unless proportional representation (or something similar) is implemented.
Trump wouldn't win as a third party, but the votes given to his third party would destroy the Republican party's chances of winning utterly. I suppose that's his "Trump" card, if it was in his best interest (it isn't) he definitely could hand the election to the Democrats if he so chose.
-
He seems arrogant, though. Do you think he might just think too highly of himself to realise that if he goes his own way, he's shooting himself in the foot?
-
I just think he's smarter than that. This all of course precludes that Trump doesn't become the Republican nominee.
-
I don't know. He's been getting the most support of the Republican candidates until recently, but I don't think an actual smart person would go on the way he does, and legitimately expect to win.
Or at least, I HOPE he doesn't stand an actual chance of winning.
-
Surprisingly a lot of what he is saying appeals to people. My dad supports Trump.
-
Despite his racism and sexism? He's a clown.
-
There's a whole generation of 'conservatives' raised on Fox News and taught to believe that anything related to liberal causes or the Democrats is evil and going to destroy the country and everything they know and hold dear. Republicans stood by and encouraged it because it benefited them for almost a decade...but in doing so they created a monster they can no longer control, who sees them as just as bad or evil because they support compromise with Democrats at times...and these are the people that are supporting Donald Trump and Ben Carson.
And the thing is, if something isn't done about this culture, this monster will be even bigger come 2020. 'Establishment' Republicans are in mortal danger of losing control of their own party.
-
In which case they may as well split off and form a new party, but that would cede control overwhelmingly in favour of the Democrats. I suppose it's a choice Republicans must make: whether they are willing to support the cause of this so-called "monster" or essentially relent all political control to Democrats, which might not be so easy to make any more now that Democrats are becoming arguably polarized as well and aren't so willing to compromise anymore as they did back in the "establishment Republican" days. However, the Democrats' polarization isn't coming from new and young outsiders joining the party in a national stage; it's from the establishment—the baby boomers—evolving their stances to become more and more liberal.
-
Honestly, I think most Trump supporters are just sick and tired enough of politics as usual that anyone who isnt part of "the man" would do. I mean, and I know this is a....weird comparison, but look at the Nazi's. Most Germans did not think like them or agree with them, but the people went with them because they wanted a change, ANY change. The same is happening with Trump I think.
-
I'm hoping that Super Tuesday will revive this thread.
Rubio won 1 state. 1. Minnesota can at least be proud that the majority didn't vote for Trump. But Rubio is done. He's Walter Mondale, finished. Cruz would be interesting to watch but I don't think he can defeat Trump either. Kasich and Carson are non-entites. Trump almost certainly will be the nominee.
Sanders performance was disappointing. Losing Massachusetts was a blow. I think Clinton will take the Democratic nomination.
As for the General, I hope America doesn't pick that lunatic Trump as it's next leader. If it does then they deserve exactly what they will get.
-
I don't particularly like Clinton either. Fucking politics.
-
Hi everyone! ^o^
And, ah, I don't really like any of them.
-
Yeah, Bernie is losing 60-40, and if that keeps up, not even winning all of the superdelegates (literally 0% chance of that) would save him. Super Tuesday consisted of 7 Southern states out of 11, though, and Hillary was supposed to win those, so there's still a chance if Bernie can win more in the other regions since Hillary's few non-Southern state wins have all been pretty close.
And I agree, Rubio is pretty much done. However, he said he's going to stay in the race, so that will keep his voters from going to Cruz, which will allow Trump to continue winning. Not saying Cruz is much better than Trump, though.
I honestly don't know if I would vote for Hillary if she wins the Democratic nomination. If it's her versus Trump, I might have to (very reluctantly), though my conscience might force me to throw my vote away to Jill Stein.
-
Why are third parties such a big no-no? The two-party system seems idiotic from an outside perspective, but I suspect I'm missing some historical context.
-
Ah, I'm rather democratic myself, but after having talked to some people, I am starting to agree that we cannot afford to have another democratic president, at the moment. Not that I'm saying Trump should win, however, we either need a good and nice republican or a third party to win, which is sadly, very unlikely.
-
Yeah, Bernie is losing 60-40, and if that keeps up, not even winning all of the superdelegates (literally 0% chance of that) would save him. Super Tuesday consisted of 7 Southern states out of 11, though, and Hillary was supposed to win those, so there's still a chance if Bernie can win more in the other regions since Hillary's few non-Southern state wins have all been pretty close.
And I agree, Rubio is pretty much done. However, he said he's going to stay in the race, so that will keep his voters from going to Cruz, which will allow Trump to continue winning. Not saying Cruz is much better than Trump, though.
I honestly don't know if I would vote for Hillary if she wins the Democratic nomination. If it's her versus Trump, I might have to (very reluctantly), though my conscience might force me to throw my vote away to Jill Stein.
Bernie can still win the nomination, though it seems like the media really doesn't want him to win... Obama lost all of Super Tuesday, and he's in the White House, is he not?
And I think that I'll "throw my vote away" to Jill Stein, too. I don't like voting for candidates that have the support of corporations... :/
-
Why are third parties such a big no-no? The two-party system seems idiotic from an outside perspective, but I suspect I'm missing some historical context.
Well, it's not that people don't want them, it's that our elections use First-Past-The-Post voting, meaning whomever has the most votes (not necessarily the majority of the votes) wins. This causes elections to almost always come down to just two candidates/parties. The thought process is that if there are multiple parties, then only the one with the most votes wins, so might as well vote for the party most likely to win even if it only somewhat matches your positions since it's at least better than the other largest party that definitely doesn't match your positions. This is why so many people consider themselves independents and just don't vote since votes for third parties are "wasted votes". This is also why I support preferential (ranked) voting as well as Bernie Sanders, who's an independent.
The US has also pretty much always had a two-party system because of its use of FPTP voting, though the parties have changed dramatically over time.
Bernie can still win the nomination, though it seems like the media really doesn't want him to win... Obama lost all of Super Tuesday, and he's in the White House, is he not?
And I think that I'll "throw my vote away" to Jill Stein, too. I don't like voting for candidates that have the support of corporations... :/
Really? I did not know that. I definitely don't think Bernie is out yet, but he's certainly got his work cut out for him. If he wins, it'll be very close considering the number of superdelegates Hillary already has.
-
Some people say that Bernie had a good night last night because he won four states; others said he had a bad night delegate-wise because he lost by 20-30+ points in the Southern states and thus recorded fewer delegates than he gained by winning those states. At this point, I believe, Sanders doesn't have much of a chance to win the nomination, but has succeeded in commanding a legitimate race, as well drawing Clinton leftward with his influence.
Kasich couldn't even win Vermont, the state with one of the most moderate Republican electorates. He's done. Meanwhile, Cruz and Rubio are trying to outbid each other, scrambling to gain the non-Trump delegates in the process. It will not work out well for either of them, especially because the voters' idea of non-Trump and the establishment idea of non-Trump are two different individuals.
My prediction is that the anti-Trump backlash in the GOP and his alienation of specific demographics will lend an easy win to Clinton in November. She may even win some states that are normally troublesome for the Democrats such as Georgia. Her husband did win that state in '92.
I personally couldn't much vote for a third party not because I disagree with the concept of third parties but because there isn't a third party that I feel I agree with. I agree that it is definitely a product of first-past-the-post voting and that we should move to instant-runoff voting, however.
-
Why are third parties such a big no-no? The two-party system seems idiotic from an outside perspective, but I suspect I'm missing some historical context.
Well, it's not that people don't want them, it's that our elections use First-Past-The-Post voting, meaning whomever has the most votes (not necessarily the majority of the votes) wins. This causes elections to almost always come down to just two candidates/parties. The thought process is that if there are multiple parties, then only the one with the most votes wins, so might as well vote for the party most likely to win even if it only somewhat matches your positions since it's at least better than the other largest party that definitely doesn't match your positions. This is why so many people consider themselves independents and just don't vote since votes for third parties are "wasted votes". This is also why I support preferential (ranked) voting as well as Bernie Sanders, who's an independent.
The US has also pretty much always had a two-party system because of its use of FPTP voting, though the parties have changed dramatically over time.
This is also a big part of it. The Democratic and Republican parties are both incredibly flexible, in that they can modify their stances enough to absorb the supporters of potentially viable third parties without alienating most of their regular supporters.
I can't consciously give my vote to a Republican for the next 15-20 years, if current trends continue. I honestly don't think I'll feel good about voting for Hillary either, but I'm very optimistic about Bernie's chances. Only about a quarter of all delegates are pledged, and Hillary's biggest states are already out of the way. In the meantime she'll continue digging herself deeper holes over scandals, flip flopping, and other general dishonesty. I think Bern still has an excellent shot at getting the nomination.
Kasich couldn't even win Vermont, the state with one of the most moderate Republican electorates. He's done. Meanwhile, Cruz and Rubio are trying to outbid each other, scrambling to gain the non-Trump delegates in the process. It will not work out well for either of them, especially because the voters' idea of non-Trump and the establishment idea of non-Trump are two different individuals.
What do you mean by that?
-
The establishment wants Rubio to be the most viable candidate other than Trump, although Rubio has won only a single state. Cruz has won four. Yet a Cruz-Trump race for the nomination is just as disastrous to the future of the Republican Party as Trump outright.
-
Well, we've already established that if the Republican party has half of a brain they'll nominate Kaisich. He's the only one in that race who isn't an open racist or bigot. The other candidates are CRAZY in the Republican primary. Cruz and Carson want a religious war against the Middle East, Rubio wants to forced raped women to carry babies to term and break off relations with Cuba again, and Trump wants to build walls, "great great powerful wonderful healthcare" and "make our army so strong that no one will mess with us."
I'd be genuinely concerned for the future of the world if any of them became President of the United States...
-
Well, with Republicans, you're going to have some irreconcilable stances on abortion, gay rights, etc. that are going to offend our overwhelmingly liberal sentiments here in Wintreath. I don't really think every Republican candidate is an outright BIGOT like Trump, Cruz, Carson.
-
Unfortunately "future of the world" is no overstatement. Goddamn America and the fallout your politicians' actions have on every other country. :P
I honestly can't say I like any of your candidates very much, but to vote for the lesser of the multiple evils you have lurking around, I'd probably go for Sanders in your shoes. He seems to be well-intentioned, at the least. I just worry that he'll be an idealistic fool.
-
On the Republican side, Trump will be the nominee, even if the establishment is still in denial about that. The problem is that they didn't take him seriously and assumed that he would do something to take himself out of the contest, and now it's a case of too little too late. Even worse, all the remaining people in the race believe they're in the best position to beat him, and are willing to fight even if it fractures the anti-Trump vote. Some are even planning to fight for the nomination at a potential brokered convention in the event Trump has the most delegates but not a majority, which regardless of the outcome would be a disaster for the Republican party.
On the Democratic side, Clinton remains the favourite, but I wouldn't say she's any more or less so than before. Sanders won enough states to at least stay a viable candidate, and he has the money and support to fight on. His problem is that he's failed to gain much support with African-Americans, and they've powered most of Clinton's victories in the south. The African-American community has long had a positive impression of the Clintons, and she's campaigned on continuing President Obama's legacy, which helps with that group as well.
As for third parties, I'm not sure if I posted it here or just on the IRC, but a number of leftest parties, including the Green Party, are preparing to promote themselves to Sanders supporters in the event that he loses the nomination (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/why-socialists-cant-wait-for-bernie-to-lose-213593). It's not that they can win this election, but if a party can get at least 5% of the vote they can qualify for federal funds in the next election, so in a way it's important to them as well. The issue with third parties is that the two main parties have erected significant barriers for third parties and independents to get on the ballot, such as requirements to turn in petitions with a large number or signatures. The two parties are still willing to come together to preserve their joint self-interests and keep alternatives out of the process.
-
ACTUALLY Sanders' losses aren't that damaging. IIRC he's actually posed to win a lot of States now, as Super Tuesday was known to be a bit of a loss to him...
-
As for third parties, I'm not sure if I posted it here or just on the IRC, but a number of leftest parties, including the Green Party, are preparing to promote themselves to Sanders supporters in the event that he loses the nomination (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/why-socialists-cant-wait-for-bernie-to-lose-213593). It's not that they can win this election, but if a party can get at least 5% of the vote they can qualify for federal funds in the next election, so in a way it's important to them as well.
God, that worries me. Spoiler effect be damned.
Echoing the flexibility of the parties, I feel the Democratic Party can more easily accommodate its growing socialist wing than it is to completely divide the party over it. The same probably can't be said about the Tea Party movement, seeing as it's seemingly already too late.
The formation of a new party system is imminent.
-
The formation of a new party system is imminent.
You can rest assured that this'll be a re-aligning election, of course!! :D
And depending upon who you ask, it's either wonderful or horrible...
Quite similar to the Progressive Party Election when Teddy Roosevelt decided to run 3rd party!! :)
-
The formation of a new party system is imminent.
You can rest assured that this'll be a re-aligning election, of course!! :D
And depending upon who you ask, it's either wonderful or horrible...
Quite similar to the Progressive Party Election when Teddy Roosevelt decided to run 3rd party!! :)
And there was massive upheaval, the political situation of the US was forever changed and we still feel the effects today.
Oh wait, all that happened when Teddy Roosevelt ran was that he came in second.
-
I don't think you're suddenly going to see a major third party rise overnight, or even four years from now, but I think more people are going to search for a party that speaks to them even if it doesn't have a shot at the presidency, especially Bernie Sanders's supporters...they've already shown that they're willing to support a long-shot candidate that speaks to them, and I think the Clinton campaign has made a major miscalculation in assuming that his supporters will fall in line and support her in the general election. Some probably will, but others who consider her a liar or a scheming politician won't, and others will remember the way her and her supporters dismissed them as hopelessly idealistic people that don't understand how the world really works. To them, the Green Party, who essentially agrees with most of Sanders's positions, may very well speak to them.
On the Republican side, either way you're going to have a faction that's deeply dissatisfied with the state of the party at the end of the primaries, and depending on which side it is either the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party may speak to them...assuming Trump himself doesn't lose and start his own third-party run. He's got the money and popularity to do it.
-
Most political pundits say that Hillary will generally be in better shape in the general election. They predict that more Sanders supports are likely to support Clinton than GOP voters are to support Trump. If Trump wins the GOP nod, some even say that some "establishment" voters may cross over and vote for Hillary for the presidency in an attempt to save the Republican Party from Trump.
-
Some thoughts after primaries yesterday (Michigan, Mississippi, Idaho (Republican), and Hawaii (Republican).
In spite of the predictions and wishes of the Republican establishment, or perhaps because of them, Trump is still the person to beat, having won three of the four states that held Republican primaries. Even worse for the establishment, their candidate Rubio failed to win any delegates at all from three of the states. Looks like it'll be a Trump-Cruz contest by the end of the month, and that thought is sure to give the establishment real heartburn.
On the Democratic side, Sanders's "upset" victory in Michigan means he remains a viable candidate for at least the rest of the month, but more importantly gives him a template for winning vital states like Illinois and Ohio, which hold votes later this month. Most concerning for Clinton, he did much better with African-Americans in Michigan than he had been in the deep south, while her southern firewall is withering as she runs out of states there to run the board with (she did win Mississippi 84%-16%, for example).
The next important primary date is March 15th, when Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio vote. I think for Sanders to remain a viable candidate, he must win at least two of those states, and one must be either Illinois or Ohio. It could also very well be the Republican establishment's last, best chance to stop Trump before their convention.
-
Why I hate open primaries: Seven percent of GOP voters in Michigan's primary last night were self-declared Democrats. They were all probably trying to play spoiler to Donald Trump, which nevertheless failed miserably. The funny part about the polls in the state is that the Democratic race had Clinton up by twenty-one percentage points, so all the anti-Trump Democratic voters were probably Clinton supporters because they assumed that she had the election in the bag, so to speak.
Meanwhile, I'm worried about how that will play out in my home state primary (side note: I'm in the precarious situation where I will turn 18 after the April 5 Wisconsin primary but before the November 8 general election, so I will be able to vote for the general election but not the primary, because Wisconsin does not have a provision allowing 17-year-olds like me to do so). However, the effect may in fact turn out to be the opposite due to the fact that Sanders will take a resounding lead there. Either that or Sanders supporters will be concerned enough to receive as many delegates as possible that they'll run up the lead as much as they can simply because they can't afford not to.
Regardless, the principle still applies: primaries should not allow party members to cross over to the other side for "strategic" purposes. If you support a candidate, vote for that candidate! Let the party voters have their say in who receives the nomination, not whoever can afford to give their vote to a candidate the other party has an easier chance of beating. Given the only way to solve that is to allow voters to register with a party, a process that doesn't exist in either Wisconsin or Michigan. As well, independent voters could still sway an election anti-candidate strategic voting rather than pro-candidate voting, unless the primaries were fully closed, which would only punish those who don't wish to conform to a party line.
-
I think that open primaries are actually kind-of fun because of that. Independents aren't disenfranchised. And I don't think that the people hard-line enough to vote in the Republican primary and not the Democratic one are probably not Hillary supporters. The progressive voting block is generally the type that likes to pull stunts like that to ensure a less radical candidate/more radical candidate, depending upon what their goals are (winning the election or damage control when the other party wins).
As Wintermoot pointed out, the states left on the Democratic side aren't part of Hillary's southern firewall, and Bernie will easily carry the Great Plains, the name "Clinton" is being tarnished here. And there are still a lot of states here to caucus—Dakotas, Utah, Wyoming, Illinois, etc. I also think that Bernie will trounce Clinton in WA and OR, and probably also in CA, too. That's the progressive stronghold of America, and Clinton does have a lot of corporate ties to big business.
-
Also California has like several hundred delegates up for grabs IIRC
-
Oh, I'm not in favour of disenfranchising independents; I just want semi-closed primaries so blocks of voters can't pull shenanigans by voting for their least favourite candidate on the other side, thereby playing spoiler effect to the candidate they support. Semi-closed primaries specifically include independents, but only have them choose one primary in which to vote. I realize that this isn't a perfect alternative, and that independents can still play these kinds of strategic voting games, but it still abates the kind of politics that makes voting more about the party than about the candidates therein.
the name "Clinton" is being tarnished here.
See, that's the thing I'm worried about. What if Sanders doesn't win the election and Clinton does? How will Sanders supporters react to the election then, and would they vote for Clinton, or instead lock in a third-party vote for Jill Stein? It seems like more than in elections prior, many Sanders supporters openly attack Clinton, making it more difficult to support her in the general election if she wins. This "Bernie or bust" movement may cost progressives the election this year if Clinton becomes the nominee.
-
I have my doubts that Clinton will get the presidency. A lot of Sanders supports will either:
A) Not Vote
B) Support Trump as their Nuclear Option
C) Support the Jill Stein/The Greens.
-
I think more people would support Hillary than they would Trump.
Hillary has her had sides to her, sure. But Trump's bad sides...well, they trump Hillary's. :P
-
The slander of Clinton out here has basically resulted in people supporting a sort of "anything but Hillary" position, which I really don't like, but I myself can't deny the fact that Hillary is a corporate puppet. But those stupid pundits beating the e-mails night and day are what're going to cost her the election, even if she gets the nomination. And the more frustrating thing is that it doesn't even matter if the e-mails were actually a problem in the first place!! What was it Gobbels said? If you say something loud enough and often enough, it becomes the truth? (Something like that.)
-
True, but you can't deny that people are going to rather want her than someone who outright said he was going to close US borders to "Muslims," not even thinking about the fact that Muslims come in all races, not just one.
For the stupid shit Hillary has pulled, Trump has pulled some stupid, racist, bigoted shit himself.
-
I'm not so sure that the emails have really mattered. Ultimately long before this most people had formed opinions on her, and the emails probably only served to self-validate the opinions of those that didn't like her, while those that do probably dismissed the allegations as being politically motivated.
I think her problem is that she's just an uninspiring candidate...she's trying to talk the talk and claim herself a progressive, but she's in reality a centrist in the mold of her husband. Ultimately, her platform is maintaining the status quo with maybe a few small changes here and there at a time when people want the hope and change that Obama campaigned on back in 2008. It seems to me that most people aren't supporting her because they really like her or her platform, but they see her as the least riskiest candidate in terms of not losing to a Republican.
-
That woman doesn't have an iota of sincerity in any molecule of her body. She'll say whatever she has to to win. I don't think she even thinks past her own ambition. In the words of my favourite homicidal clown, she's a dog chasing tyres. She won't even know what to do with it when she catches it. Mmusi Maimane, the new leader of the DA after Helen Zille stepped down, is exactly the same, and I absolutely refuse to support him, even if he's a better candidate than Zuma. I'd rather just go waste my vote on a party I actually agree with, like COPE, who are what the ANC initially promised to be.
-
That woman doesn't have an iota of sincerity in any molecule of her body. She'll say whatever she has to to win. I don't think she even thinks past her own ambition. In the words of my favourite homicidal clown, she's a dog chasing tyres. She won't even know what to do with it when she catches it. Mmusi Maimane, the new leader of the DA after Helen Zille stepped down, is exactly the same, and I absolutely refuse to support him, even if he's a better candidate than Zuma. I'd rather just go waste my vote on a party I actually agree with, like COPE, who are what the ANC initially promised to be.
I've been thinking about throwing my vote away on a third party if Bernie doesn't win the nomination. Apparently I favor the Green Party for most issues. Jill Stein '16!
-
That woman doesn't have an iota of sincerity in any molecule of her body. She'll say whatever she has to to win. I don't think she even thinks past her own ambition. In the words of my favourite homicidal clown, she's a dog chasing tyres. She won't even know what to do with it when she catches it. Mmusi Maimane, the new leader of the DA after Helen Zille stepped down, is exactly the same, and I absolutely refuse to support him, even if he's a better candidate than Zuma. I'd rather just go waste my vote on a party I actually agree with, like COPE, who are what the ANC initially promised to be.
I've been thinking about throwing my vote away on a third party if Bernie doesn't win the nomination. Apparently I favor the Green Party for most issues. Jill Stein '16!
My friend who caucused for Sanders in Iowa said he will write in his [Sanders'] name for the general if he doesn't win, so that's always an option. But if you already agree with the Greens, it's best to give them support instead, seeing as how a party needs 5% of the ballot to be nationally viable (present in national debates, receive federal campaign funding, etc.).
However, I worry that such an effort on a mass scale would play spoiler effect, such as Ralph Nader's run in 2000.
-
So now, exactly one month in the future, we have additional updates on the state of the race:
- Donald Trump has all but locked up the Republican race, with his main competitors Ted Cruz and John Kasich withdrawing their bids.
- However, interestingly enough, there was a rumour about Ted Cruz supposedly reentering the campaign should he somehow win the Nebraska GOP primary today (through early voters or the fact that Cruz is still on the ballot). This news comes less than two weeks after he named his vice-presidential nominee to be Carly Fiorina before the Indiana primary and subsequently dropped out.
- Hillary Clinton remains in the lead for the Democratic nomination, though Bernie Sanders is favoured to win the next several states and partially alleviate his delegate deficit. Regardless of what happens in the race, Sanders has promised to keep his candidacy open until the July nomination convention.
- @Wintermoot, it is the West Virginia primary today for both Republicans and Democrats, so I encourage you to vote if you have not already done so. I hope you have already registered, because there is less than an hour before the polls close, I believe. :P
This election has been a fun/interesting/weird ride for me both as a first-time voter and as a newfound political junkie, so I hope to hear more discussion on the election and politics in general. I'd rather not take away from other general Wintreath interests, so I've found a Reddit political discussion board (http://reddit.com/r/politicaldiscussion) to contribute to; they even have an IRC server, so at some time or another I may end up juggling both chat threads.
-
Just as an aside, I know that we're not a political region in terms of how we do things internally or in gameplay, but I think discussion of real-life politics could certainly be a Wintrean interest, and I occasionally try to create these sorts of topics to stir up activity and discussion. If we decide not to talk about things because we don't think they're a regional interest, we'll just be denying ourselves a chance to have more discussions and to be active in more areas.
Anyways, the primary election is pretty much decided at this point. The main question going forward will be where the people who supported the other candidates go. Will Sanders's supporters turn to the Green Party, which will be actively courting them, stay home, or fall in line behind Clinton? On the other side, will those that didn't support Trump end up staying home, supporting the Libertarian party (or a new party...there's still talk of that at least), or even support Clinton? I've ready articles postulating all of those possibilities.
On the Democratic side, there's also the question of what happens to Sanders himself. At this point, I suspect he's running not so much to win the nomination, but to get as many delegates as possible in order to influence the Democratic Party platform, and perhaps to keep Clinton from trying to move further to the right as she'd almost certainly do in the absence of a challenge from the left. But once she's nominated, what happens to him? Will she nominate him for a position in the same way Obama nominated her after he won against her? That in itself could have an impact on what happens with his supporters.
And then there's the general election...who do people least dislike, Trump or Clinton? :P
-
Well I mean Clinton is pretty nasty as time has shown, but Trump is a goddamn psychopath.
-
Trump is a narcissist, not a psychopath. Ted Cruz is a psychopath.
Were I in your people's shoes, I'd probably just not vote, or vote for some party that doesn't stand a chance of winning.
The nice thing about SA is that people can still win seats in parliament depending on their percentage score in the election. If the DA had 30% of the votes, they get 30% of the seats. If some fringe party won 1% of the votes, they get a few seats as well.
Voices aren't drowned out like they are in America.
-
Well the voting in for the House of Representatives and senators is another time and it kinda works like that...
Weirdly enough though very few in America give a single fuck about that one even though it is as important if not more important than the president...
-
The nice thing about SA is that people can still win seats in parliament depending on their percentage score in the election. If the DA had 30% of the votes, they get 30% of the seats. If some fringe party won 1% of the votes, they get a few seats as well.
The consequence of that is that you end up voting for a party rather than a candidate. And oftentimes in parliamentary systems like that, there are severe penalties for an MP voting out of line with their party. That is probably the result of parties that can afford to have narrower platforms. Approval of that versus a two-party system is a matter of opinion.
But Congressional seats are still of that system, just on a more local level. That is, a Green Party Congressional hopeful with 5% of the vote or so would still lose. Even if the 435 seat races gave 5% to the Green Party nationwide, they would most likely end up with zero seats.
The lack of interest in Representative and Senatorial elections is absolutely disappointing, however. Some even go so far as to run unopposed (although that's not terribly common) due to such an incumbency advantage, a principle that goes back to "hating Congress but loving your Congressman".
-
It's still a much more diverse view-point. Although some people in the parties in America are willing to oppose their parties, I've never seen such a stalemate in South Africa as I can sometimes see between the Republicans and Democrats.
A few individuals, like Mmusi Maimane and Julius Malema, have begun abusing the system, but it's quite a novelty.
Ironically, their dirty politics have started to make me much more sympathetic to certain members of the ANC, such as Blade Nzimande and Cyril Ramaphosa, who truly know their shit, and try their best to get things done, when these obstructionist assholes get in their way.
Also, Cyril Ramaphosa and Blade Nzimande have quite different views on all matters political than, say, Jacob Zuma or the previous president, Thabo Mbeki.
-
One of the things that Republicans and their allied groups do better than Democrats and their groups is to get people out to vote during the off-elections...you'll see that Democrats do great during Presidential elections, but Republicans do great during mid-term elections, resulting in them taking control of many state governments. In my own state, in 2014 the Republicans seized control of both chambers of the legislature for the first time in 80 years, allowing them to advance and pass items on everything from loosening restrictions on carrying guns to making it harder for labor unions to raise money to legalizing raw milk.
Most importantly on the federal level, the state governments control the redistricting process that must happen every ten years after a census. The party that controls most of the states during this time can make things significantly easier for themselves and significantly harder on the other party by redrawing districts so that those that vote for the other party are "corralled" into a few districts. in 2010, it being a mid-term election, that was the Republicans, but 2020 is a presidential election, so the Democrats have a shot at it this time.
-
Oh, the wonders gerrymandering has lent American representative democracy... :P
-
So, barring some scenario where superdelegates vote against the person with the most pledged delegates, Hillary Clinton is now officially the presumptive Democratic nominee. Thoughts?
-
Unless Bernie is somehow the nominee...go Trump (well more like go Stein, but still)
-
I can't vote for Trump...if he's not a racist, he's playing the race card to "energize" (read: incite) white people against minorities so that they vote for him, he's lied about things and then attacked the press when they reported on it, and he's insinuated that he would get back at those who oppose him like he's some kind of thug. His personality, mindset, and tactics are reminiscent of fascist leaders like Hitler and Mussolini, and he's not someone that I can get behind.
At the moment, I'm looking to see what happens with Bernie and what he ends up doing...I'm not entirely opposed to holding my nose and voting for Hillary, but if Bernie is treated badly or disregarded at this point I'll probably vote for the Green Party. I recently liked them on Facebook, and I feel like they've done more to reach out to his supporters than Hillary has...not to mention I think I agree with them most on the issues.
-
The only problem I have with the Green Party is some of their anti-science stances. Until very recently, the Green Party was pro-homeopathy, and remains remarkably anti-nuclear power. But other than that, I like their positions, and their platform will hopefully change if/when they become more mainstream.
-
Honestly, I'm a bit cautious about nuclear power myself...I would rather see solar power advance and become more viable. But that's for another topic, I suppose. :P
I'd say the Green Party has done the best job of courting Sanders supporters so far...if there's one thing I don't like, it's how Hillary and her supporters have at times labeled us as entitled people who want free stuff and don't know how the world really works. You know, many of the things Bernie has campaigned on are actually things in other developed nations...why is it so unrealistic here?
-
The only problem I have with the Green Party is some of their anti-science stances. Until very recently, the Green Party was pro-homeopathy, and remains remarkably anti-nuclear power. But other than that, I like their positions, and their platform will hopefully change if/when they become more mainstream.
It makes me wonder whether the Green Party will take on a Libertarian Party approach as of late: nominating former disaffected Democratic governors who feel the party is not progressive enough. I know it's different than the actual route the Libertarians have taken, but it is probably the only method I can imagine to become more mainstream on a presidential level, and the discussion will be especially prominent this year depending on the success (or lack thereof) of Jill Stein.
In regards to that, if the Green Party wants to build up on the successes of 2016 (assuming the Stein ticket takes a lot of former Sanders voters), they have to nominate candidates for the House and Senate, arguably more important than jumping directly to the presidency. Having a seat on the Minneapolis City Council isn't enough to gain national relevance.
I'm not necessarily a fan of the Green Party either, due to reasons stated above, and I'd rather have the Democratic Party platform become more progressive to meet the needs of the changing electorate and political landscape. But that doesn't mean I want to undo the successes of the Democratic Party by waging a war between its own supporters and primarying out relatively-moderate candidates. That, I feel, would only lead to a Nader-Gore situation like in 2000.
-
I'm seeing some interesting theories that Trump never actually thought he'd stand a chance of winning, and ran merely to drive his ego, and now that it seems he stands a real chance, he's trying to destroy his own campaign. I don't really buy it. Doing so would destroy his prospects in other areas of his life too, so this sounds wildly far-fetched to me, but I suppose that with Trump, anything's possible.
Seeing his own party turn him against him over his beef with a soldier's parents is entertaining, at the least. It's amazing that people only began seeing him for what he is when he insulted a soldier and his family. God bless America?
-
I think it's important to remember that only won about 30% of Republicans supported Trump in the primaries...he won mostly because there were so many other people running and that split the rest of the vote between them. There are a lot of Republicans that aren't happy with their nominee...some are openly supporting Clinton or Gary Johnson, while others are supporting him out of party loyalty more than anything. But his party has only ever been reluctantly on board with him.
-
I'm seeing some interesting theories that Trump never actually thought he'd stand a chance of winning, and ran merely to drive his ego, and now that it seems he stands a real chance, he's trying to destroy his own campaign. I don't really buy it. Doing so would destroy his prospects in other areas of his life too, so this sounds wildly far-fetched to me, but I suppose that with Trump, anything's possible.
I definitely don't think Trump was expecting to win the nomination when he announced his candidacy. He probably just wanted to shit on the GOP establishment, which he absolutely did (and still does), and get himself back in the limelight, either for his own ego or to try sell something new. Then I think he got into it a bit too much as he loves winning more than anything (and it was fun for him), and now that it's gotten away from him, he obviously can't take back things after he's said them in today's world, though he's tried on many occasions.
I don't know if I would say that he's purposefully trying to destroy his campaign, but he's definitely just going along with the monster he's created rather than trying to change to be more "presidential" as it's much too late for that. I don't think he wants the responsibility of being president, but he already has it now that he's the GOP nomination. No turning back now. He's along for the ride, whether or not that means he potentially gets to be one of the (if not the) most powerful man in the world.