Jump to content
270soft Forum

Next update thread


Recommended Posts

Just now, PoliticalPundit said:

Its' probably too large a project but it'd be interesting to have to actually govern if you win a first term and then have to maintain your positions on issues (or change them and suffer backlash) and see how your policies affect economy, national security, etc..  The game Democracy does a version of this 

Ya, it would be fun to put in a mini-game which bridges elections like this. Might make sense at some point to do.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

If you had never joined this forum, we would still be having political discussions. 

Because that means you're an idiot snowflake who cant take anything even though you brought on a stupid conversation. Ban super, ban anyone, ban me for all I care. Super was commenting on a topic you

Believe it or not, while it may be a minority of people, some would like to see what Patine is talking about be realized, even if it is a small chance. I enjoy K4E and PMI more than I do PI. It's a ma

Posted Images

1 minute ago, Supreme Incompetent Leader said:

Nor was he a god-king populist

One interesting thing about Trump was he was given 2 major opportunities to seize more executive powers - COVID-19 and then riots. In both cases, he instead deferred to local authorities.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Anthony_270 said:

One interesting thing about Trump was he was given 2 major opportunities to seize more executive powers - COVID-19 and then riots. In both cases, he instead deferred to local authorities.

Not only that, but when he had the chance to replace RBG with a far-right Tom Cotton-type of judge, instead he elected to nominate another Kavanaugh-someone who's already shown himself to be consistent on keeping RvW a held-up law. He had 3 chances to replace judges with "radical" (lololololololololol) conservatives, and got 1 Likely Conservative and 2 Center-Right "Conservatives".

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Anthony_270 said:

One interesting thing about Trump was he was given 2 major opportunities to seize more executive powers - COVID-19 and then riots. In both cases, he instead deferred to local authorities.

Part of why Austin Petersen (Libertarian from MO) and Ron Paul were higher on him in 2020 than in 2016.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump really showed the beauty of the American system of government. In a place like the UK or Canada people do not vote for the candidate but for the party, so all members of parliament believe the same thing as the party that they represent. Here in America Donald Trump and Mitt Romney are in the same party but quite different in ideas and I personally think that is a wonderful thing. One thing that is lost in current state of politics in the US is that no ne can just stop and talk to the other side and try to see it from their perspective. I think that Donald trump really did something useful, throughout history the parties have had major shifts and I think that he shifted the party into the 21st Century and now we see that the RINOs for lack of a better term are try to shift the party back to the Bushes and the Romneys which I personally think will be bad for the party in the long run. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anthony_270 said:

Ya, it would be fun to put in a mini-game which bridges elections like this. Might make sense at some point to do.

This would take the game to a WHOLE extra level. I could imagine starting in the 1788 election and going all the way to 2020, I'm sure this would garner the game alot of popularity (even with just a simple mini game that bridges elections)

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anthony_270 said:

One interesting thing about Trump was he was given 2 major opportunities to seize more executive powers - COVID-19 and then riots. In both cases, he instead deferred to local authorities.

If Trump just listened to his pollster and was pro-mask from the beginning of COVID he would have won. He bungled covid so badly and STILL nearly beat Biden (or did beat him, but certain states ____ won't get into it) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Berg2036 said:

Trump really showed the beauty of the American system of government. In a place like the UK or Canada people do not vote for the candidate but for the party, so all members of parliament believe the same thing as the party that they represent. Here in America Donald Trump and Mitt Romney are in the same party but quite different in ideas and I personally think that is a wonderful thing. One thing that is lost in current state of politics in the US is that no ne can just stop and talk to the other side and try to see it from their perspective. I think that Donald trump really did something useful, throughout history the parties have had major shifts and I think that he shifted the party into the 21st Century and now we see that the RINOs for lack of a better term are try to shift the party back to the Bushes and the Romneys which I personally think will be bad for the party in the long run. 

Socially Im very left leaning and still able to have talks with people on the right regarding economic issues. 

But if I express even one belief hinting that I am a conservative on any policy stance with people I know on the left.. no bueno 

 

Just my experience. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheMiddlePolitical said:

This would take the game to a WHOLE extra level. I could imagine starting in the 1788 election and going all the way to 2020, I'm sure this would garner the game alot of popularity (even with just a simple mini game that bridges elections)

Ya, the big trick is to keep it simple. I'll think about this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Supreme Incompetent Leader said:

A very non consistent platform can easily be described as Biden's problem in the debates. At one point he stressed he'd ban fracking. And....then he denied it. Next he said he wouldn't implement gun policies championed by Kamala Harris....and then he promised he'd make Beto O'Rourke his gun czar. The man has flipped from center-left to left or even far-left on a lot of issues over the course of the last campaign. Trump on the other hand campaigned like a populist and governed half like a neocon, and then in these last few 2 years, more like a neopopulist. So to say he's inconsistent on his platform is fine, but just remember there are other people who were arguably more inconsistent during the campaign.

I'm not a Biden fan, either, to be honest. The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election presented two awful septagenarians who were both very weak candidates with no real message who would have each been easy prey to a better candidate by the other party. This is becoming a real issue with the American Duopoly and the enforced two-party system where Third Party and Independent candidates are institutionally suppressed and starved for media oxygen - a form of the electoral rigging and suppression the U.S. Department of States scolds emerging democracies over, just less brutal and overt - horrid elections with bad candidates from both major parties and the two major parties being the only "viable," or "electable," ones. And the unrepresentative and easily manipulated primary races don't really help the issue much. The Duopoly and it's corrupt political machine of electoral rigging, interference, and malfeasance (the latter two that were the charges the alleged Russian hackers of 2016 were indicted for, but that the elites of the two major parties do ALL THE TIME - when they go to jail for it?) are the problem. The Duopoly must fall, in the same election, and be replaced - preferably by candidates desiring real, productive change and not vapid, monstrous populist or "electoral revolutionaries," - before any major and real change, betterment, and progress for the better in the U.S. can be made.

 

2 hours ago, populist86 said:

Not to make the thread too political (mod can delete this post if it goes in that direction too much), Trump has a lot in common with the GOP that was founded in the 1850s:

• Protectionism on trade

• Support for central bank/soft money

• Unilateral foreign policy

• Spending on infrastructure and subsidies

Can’t speak for other people, but people like Reagan and the Bushes made me register as a democrat in 04. Donald Trump made me switch to republican.

I’m not a fiscal conservative. I’m definitely not a social conservative (atheist, pro-choice, bi...so having Pence on the ticket made it a hard swallow for me). People can republicans even if they aren’t conservatives.

 

2 hours ago, Supreme Incompetent Leader said:

I agree that Trump is more of an old-school conservative than what the establishment wanted him to be. I see Mike Pence as both a pacifier to the Neocon/GOP establishment and as a huge blanket to religious Republicans-as his whole October surprise didn't really seem to work when it came to the final evangelical vote split. 

Trump was as much a nazi as Ben Shapiro was. He was not a radical racist like a certain Alabama governor of the 60s. Nor was he a god-king populist or Neocon warrior. He was a mix of everything in the center, with flakes of radicalism from both sides loosely mixed in.

Trump is neither a Fremont nor a Hitler. Let's have some perspective, here. He's his own beast, and one very much of the current zeitgeist, and not some era of yore - a zeitgeist were the degeneration of the integrity and credibility of the socio-political dialogue and purview have denigrated to a cesspool, and where Carl Jung's quote that the, "masses are stupid," reached an epitomy - an era of incendiary social media, sensationalist "news," media (quotations used advisedly), and long-debunked myths, lies, and stereotypes - and all new ones - fervently re-embraced with new fervor. Trump is also a symptom of these problem - not a cause or an archetype like some accuse him of being. Perspective and proportion, please.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Anthony_270 said:

One interesting thing about Trump was he was given 2 major opportunities to seize more executive powers - COVID-19 and then riots. In both cases, he instead deferred to local authorities.

 

2 hours ago, Supreme Incompetent Leader said:

Not only that, but when he had the chance to replace RBG with a far-right Tom Cotton-type of judge, instead he elected to nominate another Kavanaugh-someone who's already shown himself to be consistent on keeping RvW a held-up law. He had 3 chances to replace judges with "radical" (lololololololololol) conservatives, and got 1 Likely Conservative and 2 Center-Right "Conservatives".

 

2 hours ago, populist86 said:

Part of why Austin Petersen (Libertarian from MO) and Ron Paul were higher on him in 2020 than in 2016.

 

1 hour ago, PoliticalPundit said:

If Trump just listened to his pollster and was pro-mask from the beginning of COVID he would have won. He bungled covid so badly and STILL nearly beat Biden (or did beat him, but certain states ____ won't get into it) 

Judging politicians by what they DIDN'T do isn't a very productive rabbit hole to go down in the end.

2 hours ago, Berg2036 said:

Trump really showed the beauty of the American system of government. In a place like the UK or Canada people do not vote for the candidate but for the party, so all members of parliament believe the same thing as the party that they represent. Here in America Donald Trump and Mitt Romney are in the same party but quite different in ideas and I personally think that is a wonderful thing. One thing that is lost in current state of politics in the US is that no ne can just stop and talk to the other side and try to see it from their perspective. I think that Donald trump really did something useful, throughout history the parties have had major shifts and I think that he shifted the party into the 21st Century and now we see that the RINOs for lack of a better term are try to shift the party back to the Bushes and the Romneys which I personally think will be bad for the party in the long run. 

This not the beauty of the American - and quite a few other - systems of government. It's a downhill and detriment - a tragic hamarsha. Focusing on the national leader, personally, over the legislative branch, the organs and machinery of governance, and other aspects, is absolute political poison. It is barbaric throwback to brutal, savage days of absolute monarchs, conquering warlords, self-righteous theocrats, and all-powerful emperors - a mentality that has no productive place in modern, civilized governance in any workable, ideal form. In fact, the cult of personality around the U.S. Presidency we see today was actually something the framers of the U.S. Constitution, and certainly many Founding Fathers who were NOT at the Convention (like Jefferson, very notably), were completely against the office becoming. The Commander-in-Chief role was meant as a sheer mechanism of convenience for the Washington Precedent of military subordination to civilian rule - certainly NOT to give the U.S. President license to start wars and commit war crimes abroad with unaccountable impunity. The U.S. President was ideally not supposed to initiate legislation, or participate in the legislative process, except and until a bill came to their desk from Congress. Things like the Presidential Veto, the Presidential Pardon, and Executive Orders were meant to be used as rarely as the proverbial "fine china," and, "sitting room," of Victorian-era originated idiom. In fact, a collective committee-head-of-state role, instead of a single person, like the not-long-after adopted Directory of the 1795 French Constitution after the Themadorean Reaction, but before the Brumaire Coup, and the Swiss Federation Council (the latter of which still exists) was seriously considered as well at the Philadelphia Convention, and may have been a better idea in the end. So, no, focusing on a person as opposed to a party or platform is not the "beauty," of American - and a number of other system - it's one of the great uglienesses of it. Living in Canada, but constantly saturated by media from south of the 49th, I can attest to voting for a party being FAR preferential to the Medievalist fetish around singular leadership and the Achilles heel to government that ALWAYS brings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Patine said:

Trump is neither a Fremont nor a Hitler. Let's have some perspective, here. He's his own beast, and one very much of the current zeitgeist, and not some era of yore - a zeitgeist were the degeneration of the integrity and credibility of the socio-political dialogue and purview have denigrated to a cesspool, and where Carl Jung's quote that the, "masses are stupid," reached an epitomy - an era of incendiary social media, sensationalist "news," media (quotations used advisedly), and long-debunked myths, lies, and stereotypes - and all new ones - fervently re-embraced with new fervor. Trump is also a symptom of these problem - not a cause or an archetype like some accuse him of being. Perspective and proportion, please.

I don't necessarily disagree. Obama, Trump and Biden all are similar in that regard to me. Products/symptoms of the climate in the country, not drivers/causes.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Anthony_270 said:

Ya, the big trick is to keep it simple. I'll think about this.

Will it be able to be turned off if inconvenient for fan scenario designers?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PoliticalPundit said:

From Patine's quote: It actually is given he dealt with the worst pandemic in modern day history, numerous gaffes and barely lost. Literally telling people to mask up from day 1 and he's still the President. 

I don't see how I've made or intimated that claim. I think you're misreading my quote, or reading into it what's not there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Patine said:

 

 

 

Judging politicians by what they DIDN'T do isn't a very productive rabbit hole to go down in the end.

This not the beauty of the American - and quite a few other - systems of government. It's a downhill and detriment - a tragic hamarsha. Focusing on the national leader, personally, over the legislative branch, the organs and machinery of governance, and other aspects, is absolute political poison. It is barbaric throwback to brutal, savage days of absolute monarchs, conquering warlords, self-righteous theocrats, and all-powerful emperors - a mentality that has no productive place in modern, civilized governance in any workable, ideal form. In fact, the cult of personality around the U.S. Presidency we see today was actually something the framers of the U.S. Constitution, and certainly many Founding Fathers who were NOT at the Convention (like Jefferson, very notably), were completely against the office becoming. The Commander-in-Chief role was meant as a sheer mechanism of convenience for the Washington Precedent of military subordination to civilian rule - certainly NOT to give the U.S. President license to start wars and commit war crimes abroad with unaccountable impunity. The U.S. President was ideally not supposed to initiate legislation, or participate in the legislative process, except and until a bill came to their desk from Congress. Things like the Presidential Veto, the Presidential Pardon, and Executive Orders were meant to be used as rarely as the proverbial "fine china," and, "sitting room," of Victorian-era originated idiom. In fact, a collective committee-head-of-state role, instead of a single person, like the not-long-after adopted Directory of the 1795 French Constitution after the Themadorean Reaction, but before the Brumaire Coup, and the Swiss Federation Council (the latter of which still exists) was seriously considered as well at the Philadelphia Convention, and may have been a better idea in the end. So, no, focusing on a person as opposed to a party or platform is not the "beauty," of American - and a number of other system - it's one of the great uglienesses of it. Living in Canada, but constantly saturated by media from south of the 49th, I can attest to voting for a party being FAR preferential to the Medievalist fetish around singular leadership and the Achilles heel to government that ALWAYS brings.

I was not saying that the cult personality is good or bad, or anything to that affect. All I was bringing up is that In the US you vote on the candidate and not the party so someone whos been a democrat all their life could vote for Trump and then Democrat down the rest of the ballot, which I saw a lot. Over all, the only point that I was trying to make was that you can have very different personalities in the same party unlike Canada or the UK where their is basically an Orthodox party system where you must believe what the party believes and that there is more freedom in America for your beliefs unlike a Parliamentary system. Im Sorry you miss understood what I was trying to convey @Patine

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Berg2036 said:

I was not saying that the cult personality is good or bad, or anything to that affect. All I was bringing up is that In the US you vote on the candidate and not the party so someone whos been a democrat all their life could vote for Trump and then Democrat down the rest of the ballot, which I saw a lot. Over all, the only point that I was trying to make was that you can have very different personalities in the same party unlike Canada or the UK where their is basically an Orthodox party system where you must believe what the party believes and that there is more freedom in America for your beliefs unlike a Parliamentary system. Im Sorry you miss understood what I was trying to convey @Patine

But, the U.S. is still stuck on only two viable parties who play dirty pool and abuse their incumbency thoroughly in a United Russia sort of way - just less overtly and brutally, but just as effectively - to keep Third Party and Independent candidates out of contention, de facto. And, for all the vaunted "different personalities of the same party," party line votes and demands for party solidarity outside that electoral quirk, and the use of derogatory terms like, "RINO," or, to a lesser degree, "DINO," have been more and more defeating the whole purpose of that, anyways. Pence and friends "making a stand," against Trump was not truly an any act of virtue or commendability - it's been done before, with Nixon and Bush, when the GOP leadership threw a President who was starting to hurt the PARTY's electability and image, under the bus - though in the two previous cases, they waited until said President was actually out of office, and, in the case of Bush, until they'd already lost an election (2008) trying to carry on his legacy. But it was still all about THE PARTY.  And Caucus coups and changes of party leadership between elections infamously happen in the Westminster System too - even to sitting Prime Ministers, Premiers, or Chief Ministers. There was an unverified quote from a one-term GOP Senator (I can't remember their name, I'd have to look it up again - though I'm leaning to thinking it might have been Brown, that Special Election Senator from Massachusetts replacing Kerry or Ted Kennedy, I can't even remember which now, who was called a "RINO," all the time) who said that, in an interview after their single term, in a GOP Senate caucus meeting, McConnell dropped the quote, "the Party is mother, the Party is father," - as in the CIA declaration for loyalty of it's members, "the Company is mother, the Company is father." A bit scary! So, for all this song and dance at election time, you still get party line votes and solidarity, with a few exceptions, in actual governance. And leadership conventions in Westminster System are often greatly followed events (the Conservative Party of Canada had one recently) that can have major impact on the course of party policy. And people in Canada and the UK do not always necessarily vote the same in Federal, Provincial or Devolved, and Local Government, especially given many parties have different views or takes on things, or are more or less extreme (or have different focuses) between Federal or Devolved/Provincial Governments, or are exclusive to one or the other, and many popular local parties that have large voteshares in their municipal elections have no representation in higher levels of governance, because they focus on local issues in their platform. And, again, there's more than two of these viable - the two-party barrier was broken about a decade ago (1919-1921 period) in Canada, and even before that in the UK.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree in having a more multiparty system because it gives one more choices. For example, I don't believe I could have conscientiously voted for Hilary or Trump, so another . The only problem I might sometimes have is the difficulty in forming a government (e.g. Israel).

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, IndependentPerson said:

I agree in having a more multiparty system because it gives one more choices. For example, I don't believe I could have conscientiously voted for Hilary or Trump, so another . The only problem I might sometimes have is the difficulty in forming a government (e.g. Israel).

Israel is a VERY extreme example of that problem, and notably (and singularly) infamous for that level of instability in an elective, multi-party, parliamentary state (along with the historical Weimar Republic). Israel and/or the Weimar Republic, are, of course, favourite go-to examples, often in exclusion of any others, by opponents of multi-party systems. The vast majority of elective, multi-party, parliamentary systems are not NEARLY that bad for that problem. I want to clear that up right upfront.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PoliticalPundit said:

Politico headline: Trump on path to acquittal despite stunning evidence

 

How the fuck is anyone supposed to take them seriously when they title something like this? It sounds like a CNN article. 

Why would anyone take any American-based new outlet - from Breitbart to the Daily Beast - seriously nowadays. Highbrow, professional American journalism ANYWHERE that anywhere, regardless of "bias," - of because of it - died when Walter Cronkite retired. I don't get my news from any of them - I get it from Canadian and British news outlets, Reuters, and even al Jazeera.

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Patine said:

Why would anyone take any American-based new outlet - from Breitbart to the Daily Beast - seriously nowadays. Highbrow, professional American journalism ANYWHERE that anywhere, regardless of "bias," - of because of it - died when Walter Cronkite retired. I don't get my news from any of them - I get it from Canadian and British news outlets, Reuters, and even al Jazeera.

What do you think of the Christian Science Monitor?

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, IndependentPerson said:

What do you think of the Christian Science Monitor?

I've never read it. But, if it's tied Mary Baker-Eddy's whacko cult, as it name might imply, I'm not in a hurry to subscribe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patine said:

I've never read it. But, if it's tied Mary Baker-Eddy's whacko cult, as it name might imply, I'm not in a hurry to subscribe.

Neither have I, but even though it is published by that cult (and that is why I don't read it), it has a good reputation for being unbiased.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...