Jump to content
270soft Forum

darkmoon72

Members
  • Content Count

    369
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

darkmoon72 last won the day on March 18 2010

darkmoon72 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About darkmoon72

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Hartford, CT

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I did play this just a few days ago, as Justin Trudeau.
  2. My best guess - Justin Trudeau & the Liberals win with a minority government. It would be just like what happened to his father Pierre in 1972. I wanted to get a prediction in before the votes started coming in, even if I'm dead wrong.
  3. Any of the Bob Hawke elections (1983, 1984, 1987, 1990) would interest me. The real challenge would be to win as the Liberals.
  4. I think there's something to be said for the argument that "sunshine is the best disinfectant". Remember, Howard Dean also voiced a not-so-kind opinion about Gabbard a few months ago, so it isn't like Hillary is alone in speaking up about her. I can see why the candidates don't want to go there, but I feel like somebody has to. Her being "against regime change" is meant to sound fantastic to a certain subset of low-info people on the left who aren't paying close attention to things just yet. Gabbard is really trying to be Jill Stein 2.0, and I'd like for people on the left to not fall for this phony act twice. Stein was bad enough.
  5. I myself never think support for dictators and human rights abusers is appropriate, whether it's the ones you cited, or the ones I cited. You are correct in that US support for the people you listed was atrocious, and I would never debate you on that point. I'd like to see more US politicians come out in support of democratic peace theory, rather than different politicians being fine with different sorts of dictators. But that's about as likely as getting a president who will cut our bloated military budget. I do think Putin is a somewhat bigger threat than most at this time, because he's actively messing with several democratic countries right now. I am very much aware the US is no innocent bystander on the world stage, I just don't believe that two wrongs make a right.
  6. No, I'm not going to bother engaging with you on this one. Learn how to disagree without being disagreeable first, and I'll be happy to engage you in polite conversation.
  7. I disagree. I think there's a strong chance Gabbard will go third-party and be Jill Stein 2.0 if (when) she loses the Democratic primaries. Now there's a giant spotlight being shined on that very possibility. I think the point was to scupper any chance Gabbard had of going third-party, not to stop her from winning the Democratic nomination. Keep in mind the number of votes for Jill Stein in 2016 was larger than the margin between Clinton and Trump in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, the 3 states Clinton needed to win. I think Hillary would like to avoid a repeat occurrence, and I don't blame her. While Greens have had some measure of success in other countries, in the United States, Green, as the saying goes, is still an acronym that means "Getting Republicans Elected Every November".
  8. While I have numerous criticisms and problems with former Sec. Clinton, I think she did our country a great service by calling out Tulsi Gabbard for what she is. Gabbard's a fan of Bashar al-Assad, Vladimir Putin and Narendra Modi. She belongs to a literal cult, and local Hawai'i papers have covered this extensively. She hates gay people and Muslims. She is always scurrying off to FOX News to attack Democrats and the Democratic Party. Her father was a local Republican politician, until he switched parties and became a DINO. She has a center-right voting record in a solid left district. She appeals to what I call the "TYT left" - the extreme, fringe wing of the far left that sounds quite similar to the far right (I'm also looking at you, Glenn Greenwald and The Intercept). This extremist element is quite good at making excuses for brutal dictators and telling people how terrible the Democrats are, while conveniently leaving out any criticism of Republicans. With democracy itself (in many countries, not just the US) literally under attack by Vladimir Putin, I think this is a dangerous position to take. And I think the fact that she is somewhat physically attractive is a factor in how many right-wing men seem to like her. I think a larger question, apart from the Clinton vs. Gabbard brouhaha, is how do political parties deal with infiltrators? Should they be ignored? Called out? What's the right strategy, if you think one of your candidates is a total fake? I don't have quite as many clear answers for that broader question. But I am quite happy Hillary shined a light on Tulsi Gabbard - someone had to, and if it was one of the current candidates, they'd risk damaging their own candidacy. Hillary Clinton doesn't have to worry about that.
  9. I think a lot of what will contribute to which candidate can be considered "great" will depend on what kind of Congress they have to work with throughout their administration, whether it is friendly or hostile. Washington, Lincoln, T. Roosevelt and FDR had congressional majorities throughout their entire presidencies. Recently, Reagan, Clinton, W. Bush and Obama were all more ambitious when their own party controlled one or both houses of Congress.
  10. Reminds me of Rudy Giuliani's strategy in 2008 - to avoid competing in every state until Florida, where he was ahead in the polls. He didn't finish ahead in the polls, that's for sure. I think he got 1 delegate at the convention. It's always risky putting one's stock in polls from later primary states. These polls often shift after the first few contests, especially Iowa and New Hampshire, depending on who is perceived as the front-runner(s). Dean was ahead in New Hampshire in 2003, until Kerry won Iowa. Hillary was ahead in South Carolina in 2007, until Obama won Iowa. I agree this looks bad for Biden, if true. Bernie is done - people aren't going to vote for a guy pushing 80 who had a heart attack when the campaign was just getting started, and he wasn't doing that great to begin with. Warren seems to be the one with the momentum.
  11. I tend to use both Google News and RealClearPolitics for aggregating news. I read a lot of FiveThirtyEight for polling. In the end, I try to read as much as I can from as many sources as I can, whether left or right, domestic or foreign, as long as I think they're practicing somewhat decent journalism. For this reason, I generally avoid sources like FOX News (except for polling), Breitbart, and on the left, the Young Turks and The Intercept. I do like a lot of foreign news, as US media does a pitiful job reporting on what's going on in the rest of the world. My main staple, if I had to pick one, would probably be The Guardian. But I try my best never to stick to only one outlet for my information, and I almost never watch news programs, except maybe Rachel Maddow or Lawrence O'Donnell once in a blue moon. I do have this thing where I treat election nights like they're a football game, and try to pull up several news stations on various screens showing election results. I will also have Politico, NYT and the local SoS's website (at the bare minimum) up on a device to watch vote totals come in. Sometimes I will be socializing with others, with refreshments, a holdover from my more politically active days.
  12. It probably goes without saying at this point, but I took "Trump" in your poll to mean "whomever the Republican nominee in 2020 is, whether it's Trump or not". My answers remain the same.
  13. I agree, it is weird. There are some good ideas I like in the game, I just feel like it wasn't play-tested very much. It didn't take me long to learn how to easily win the US scenario - my very first move is always to take a machete to the defense budget. I do like how the policies you enact can change the percentage that belongs to a certain group of voters. It makes sense that when I implement mass transit, the number of commuters would decrease, and so on. But the game lets it get out of hand.
  14. Democracy is a pretty decent game when it comes to governing, but the election part of it is little more than an afterthought. You start the game as the head of government. When your term expires, the election consists of a referendum on your job performance. There's no campaign and no opponent. If 50%+ of the public approves of you when your term is up, you are re-elected and get to serve another term. If not, game over. If you win a huge landslide, there are more actions you can take each turn. That's about it.
  15. I see a FOX News speaking gig in Rep. Gabbard's future, after she drops out of the 2020 race and gets primaried out of her own House seat. This tactic of constantly attacking Democrats while asking for the votes of Democrats tends to fail. It didn't work when Bernie Sanders tried it either. And yes, Gabbard is a DINO who belongs to a cult.
×
×
  • Create New...