Jump to content
270soft Forum

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. These are among many reasons why, in 2016, once both major parties made their nominations (and I announced it several times right on these forums at the time), the election was election was effectively "lost for the voters" - their was no good, ethical, or bearable candidate with any chance of winning - only lying, horrid, untrustworthy, morally bankrupt monsters, just in different ways - a "pick your poison choice" of the worst sort. Party bosses, heads of media outlets, and campaign donors OWE the voters the humble and public apology for allowing that that election to happen, then they should all permanently resign from their positions, and any other position in the future where they could influence elections in any way, then willingly turn themselves in for electoral corruption and malfeasance and plead guilty, and if Trump gives them clemency - PUBLICLY DECLINE IT! In a world with any justice and where people of power got any consequences for their actions and had any remorse, that is...
  3. That's why I put it in quotes. I would be in that "extremist" column.
  4. The kids that grew up with that 50's vision gave us the world we have today
  5. JQA will use statesman IP to put this in front of Congress.
  6. I must apologize, but, once again, the word "extremist," attached to a fairly run-of-the-mill Social Democrat like Bernie Sanders always seems jarring to me.
  7. Hillary Clinton loves to see her name in the paper and is petty enough to still be butt-hurt that Sanders had the temerity to oppose her four years ago
  8. I still Germany has a better electoral system than France there, myself. Plus, Germany's specific take on MMP (if no other major usage of that electoral system I'm aware of), better works with a Federal system of States.
  9. These things (other than WW3, which is always a phantom boogeyman that looms with "threats," but never actually happens, because all the main world powers have cooler heads who can actually stop hot-headed visible faces from demanding nuclear responses - because there are no "Red Buttons"), have been a threat for several decades, and are more a "slow demise thing," - in fact, it's quite possible of us here might not live to see such an end. And, let's be frank, for all of his many, many flaws, Trump, nor any other single leader - or even single government or single nation, is completely to blame for this stacking problem. Once again - perspective and proportion!
  10. I was looking at govtrack.us which had an ideological chart. Here's some interesting information from the chart: US Senate The most centrist columns on the chart have 5 Democrats, 2 Republicans, and 1 Democrat-caucusing Independent (King). Democrats also have Manchin who is actually listed closer to Republicans than Democrats on this chart. In the two most extreme columns, Democrats have 6, if you include Sanders. Meanwhile, Republicans have 12 "extremists". US House 13 House Dems are centrists, plus one House Dem as conservative as the average Republican. However, 37 House GOP are centrists. However, none are as liberal as the average Democrat. Dems have 8 extremely liberal House Reps. Reps have 14 extremely liberal House Reps. According to the tracker, House Dems are pretty much clustered toward the average with fewer centrists and fewer "extremists." The GOP is more spread out in the House, giving it a larger number of centrists and "extremists." For the Senate, Democrats are actually much more moderate than Dems in the House. Meanwhile, GOP In the Senate seems to be more extreme than the GOP in the House. Thus, one could argue that Republicans are much more radical/extremist than Democrats in the current US House and US Senate. However, only Senate Democrats seem to have any substantive claim to being geared towards the center or to bipartisanship. Does this mean that the toxic partisanship is mostly the fault of the GOP, as they are composed of many more "extremists?"
  11. Today
  12. Spot on... I also have that fear too, that he won't actually make any progress cause people don't want to work with him. I definitely think on ideas like the Green New Deal though theres a lot of dems warming up to the idea of it but also is Bernie going to be too forceful or not? Will Pelosi work well with him as the president? Who will be Bernie's VP to validate his policies? So much still up in the air...
  13. How does this necessarily go against what I said? "Bernie has been ahead in Iowa or competing with Joe in recent memory" I wasn't putting stock into it, I was just quoting it as the most recent poll.
  14. I delegate this to my most capable VP Mr. John Quincy Adams @Woot and will support whatever path he chooses
  15. Clinton's opinion is definitely not shared by most left-leaning voters. This can be shown by his high favorability rating, which is routinely 1st, 2nd, or 3rd, among the 10 or so candidates). If anything, I think Clinton is kind of projecting on herself. Nobody likes her. I do think she is more correct in saying that nobody wants to work with him. This is independent of liking him. The reason they might not want to work with him is that people don't like working with puritans or powerful idealists if they don't share those same ideas. Of the thousands of people in DC that he would have to work with, I bet he shares the same ideals (in large numbers) with only a couple hundred people. Ideally, he's my preferred candidate on the issues, but I'm having a hard time 100% endorsing him (he's my favorite so far still) because I think Warren can get done most of what Sanders wants to do because people can work with her. She won't do everything that Sanders says he would do, but I don't think Sanders will get anything passed Congress. It's better to get some of what you want than none of it. I hope I'm wrong if Sanders becomes president. I don't like people who are puritans as president, even if I agree with them or vote for them. One good thing about Sanders is that we won't have to worry about unnecessary military intervention. We also know that his rhetoric could focus priorities on important issues, even if he can't personally get anything through a House and Senate that will be determined to stop Democratic Socialist legislation, like the Green New Deal, Universal Single-Payer Healthcare, etc. Back on topic, Clinton has a hard time blaming her self for defeat. She can't possibly picture Trump beating her (I wouldn't say he really won. Just got lucky because of close votes in three states in an election that he lost the PV and because of the Comey Surprise against Clinton in the last few days, and possibly the Russians). Sanders campaigned for Clinton more than any other surrogate did, but she still blames him for not having a hold on his Bernie or Bust Supporters. I say he went out of his way to help someone that may have been working with the DNC to stop him from winning the nomination. However, I hold that Clinton likely would have won without the DNC help. DNC isn't going to sway that many voters. People already had a good idea about Clinton. They either liked her or didn't.
  16. This is our inheritance: a world destroyed by greed, spite and apathy. I look at the future and see global warming, WWIII, unemployement, political unstability, poison in everything we eat, the earth and animals dying all around us! You know if you ask someone in the 50s how they imagine the future would be? The war hadn’t been over for long and yet it was all positive with like peace and flying cars and such. You don't get that nowadays; we all know we're doomed, and worse, nobody cares!
  17. @mlcorcoran ISSUE THREE 1847 Mr. President. Now that Phase One and Two have gone off flawlessly, it is time for the true objective: Phase Three. You are surprised. I know. But I am sure you understand — we’ve kept you in the dark so that you could have plausible deniability if things went wrong. But they didn’t, and so now you need to know: We’re taking Cuba. ”Taking” is a strong word, perhaps. Frankly, we would have been happy to leave Cuba to Spain’s weak control. No harm, no foul. But after losing control of Mexico, Spain seems to have lost their appetite for the Western Hemisphere. Which is all well and good — but they’re not inclined to just abandon Cuba to independence. They plan to sell Cuba to the highest bidder. And if Cuba falls into the wrong hands — say, British or French ones — we could lose control of the Gulf. We could even find ourselves at war. So, Mr. President. You can understand the need for secrecy so far. This should look like just the next logical step in the southern expansion that you’ve been pursuing for your entire presidency — not an intentional counterpoint to British or French involvement. But I should warn you, sir — if we take this to Congress, and it fails, our detractors will likely publicize the plan and we’ll have to issue a formal apology to the European powers. That would be a national embarrassment. So if we’re doing this — let’s make sure we’re doing it right. What say you, Mr. President?
  18. @Actinguy Ah! I didn't realize statesman IP could go towards congressional votes, good to know!
  19. He could also spend statesmen IP to buy votes, and had enough to change it if he really just super hated Alabama. But he didn’t (he posted above), so we’re good!
  20. @Actinguy there are 41 votes in favor, 7 against. @Agent B could vote Nay and spend his 2 Faction IP for extra votes, it would not change the outcome. Alabama's statehood is ratified. Ready for Issue #3
  21. Alabama statehood is confirmed! President Polk gets 1 popularity, as does Secretary Everett. Polk loses one faction IP.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...