BF2S Forums Presidential Election 2016

oh totally different.  He's definitely using the nickname he's been called since he was an infant as a way to connect with Hispanic voters who virtually always vote Democrat. I think you've unraveled his big nefarious plan.

Also, fuck Beto.

Beto...NOT MY PRESIDENT!

Just like Hillary, right? Why do you like Beto? All he does is talk and try to be cool.  He hasn't defined any real policy positions. In that sense, he is t he classic American politician - say what you think will get you elected, and figure out where you stand later.

Cool, replace an idiot with an even emptier head. That'll show America what-for for electing Trump!

I'm kind of disappointed that the 75 candidates running are the best the Democrats could do. What a bunch of lightweights with zero charisma. I'd vote for Charles Schultz if he ran.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

it's the same playbook many repub voters use - gotta own da libs!

In that sense, it's the most american thing we can do

Don't act like Jay. Having a democrat administration in control over the vast federal bureaucracy is a major deal.

Jay wrote:

I'm kind of disappointed that the 75 candidates running are the best the Democrats could do. What a bunch of lightweights with zero charisma. I'd vote for Charles Schultz if he ran.

Because charisma matters more than policies.

If it matters that much who is in charge of the vast federal bureaucracy, then we should probably get rid of the vast federal bureaucracy.

Yes, let the free market run America.

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Don't act like Jay. Having a democrat administration in control over the vast federal bureaucracy is a major deal.

If it matters that much who is in charge of the vast federal bureaucracy, then we should probably get rid of the vast federal bureaucracy.

you think like someone who struggles to get past first premises into actual complications and nuance.

Not really. If the government has so much power to the point it's absolutely crucial that a certain party maintain power, then it is logical in a world where power bounces back and forth between two parties to shrink its power. The disconnect here is that one party openly advocates expanding government at every turn no matter the issue or expense and then act surprised and angry when they don't get to run it for a few years. It's mostly because they are wholly corrupt and being in charge is how they rake in their slush fund money, but the media sells the we're all gonna die in a gutter nonsense instead.

Jay wrote:

then act surprised and angry when they don't get to run it for a few years. It's mostly because they are wholly corrupt and being in charge is how they rake in their slush fund money, but the media sells the we're all gonna die in a gutter nonsense instead.

Does either side do that more than the other?
From this perspective they're about even, but fanboys for one side or the other lap it up about the other side.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

then act surprised and angry when they don't get to run it for a few years. It's mostly because they are wholly corrupt and being in charge is how they rake in their slush fund money, but the media sells the we're all gonna die in a gutter nonsense instead.

Does either side do that more than the other?
From this perspective they're about even, but fanboys for one side or the other lap it up about the other side.

Oh they absolutely both do it. The Democrats just have a very deep corruption built in dating back nearly 200 years. The shit they do today would fit right in with Tammany Hall crap.

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

then act surprised and angry when they don't get to run it for a few years. It's mostly because they are wholly corrupt and being in charge is how they rake in their slush fund money, but the media sells the we're all gonna die in a gutter nonsense instead.

Does either side do that more than the other?
From this perspective they're about even, but fanboys for one side or the other lap it up about the other side.

Oh they absolutely both do it. The Democrats just have a very deep corruption built in dating back nearly 200 years. The shit they do today would fit right in with Tammany Hall crap.

Of course the Republicans aren't corrupt, they never started an unjustifiable war so they could direct $2Trillion in govt funds to themselves and their supporters, and haven't been doing so for decades.

But obviously, starting a war to make rich people richer is exactly comparable with hiring too many public sector workers.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2019-04-07 17:59:57)

The Democrats have a wide variety of people running, which is ostensibly good because it offers choice. However, I am apprehensive about who their voters end up picking. It worries me that a decision by committee will just produce the least offensive candidate who is nobody's real first choice. From there, people aren't necessarily excited and apathy gets you a two-term Trump.

I'm most on board with Sanders, but a lot of people who identify as Democrats don't like him for baggage from 2016. The party apparatus still abhors him and casts him as a cook, as seen by these recent headlines of "Sanders opposes reparations!" when he essentially said that handing poor blacks a check won't solve their problems.

I like his ideas, but don't hold much hope that if he were elected, much would get done unless a wave of similar people were elected. Even with all the negatives of Trump, a lot of people still aren't on immediately on board with the D's. I think Sanders has the best chance of taking a chunk out of the white people who overwhelmingly backed Trump. It seems the simplest way to win support when you can say "these policies will benefit the vast majority of people". Warren is good, but I have severe reservations about whether she could win in a general election campaign. In all likelihood, they'll end up with a Harris/Booker type to be an Obama II veneer of respectability while not actually addressing any changes in politics.

Last edited by DesertFox- (2019-04-08 19:35:49)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its pretty well impossible to change American politics, why even try?

legitimacy. it has to be drawn from the public, if only formally, for the whole social consensus to work - it's that or the ruling capitalist class with all hang. there's also good ol' fascism of course, and the world is gradually approaching it, but we are not quite there yet, so they have to keep an army of brainwashed jays and war mans - and their libertard counterparts - out there to be put through what they call "democratic processes".