Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 26, 2017, 02:37:33 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10

 on: Today at 02:36:59 am 
Started by Watermelon sin Jamón - Last post by Tirnam
Just wondering. If Emmanuel Macron, 39, is elected, would he be the youngest President in the history of France?

Yup. Beats VGE by 9 years.

He would also beat Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte by a year.

 on: Today at 02:36:46 am 
Started by VerySeriousPerson - Last post by NOVA Green
There were no McCain/Kerry/Dole voters. Prove me wrong!

What about someone in Massachusetts who usually votes Republican but wanted to support the nominee who was from his home state? There were four counties in Massachusetts that swung Republican in 2008.

This actually sounds a lot like from friend Wes, who grew up, went to college and worked in Massachusetts before moving out to Oregon in the mid 1990s.

He was not a big fan of the DLC wing of the Democratic Party and Bill Clinton's support for Free Trade agreements (NAFTA), as a socially Liberal individual George W. turned him off with the excessive pandering to the evangelicals. He liked Gore on the labor & environmental position regarding free trade, plus as a techie he liked some of Gore's ideas on the tech sector, although I think he voted Nader in 2000 (Will need to ask him).

He thought the Iraq war was a huge folly, plus Kerry was from Mass.....

He was a bit torn in '08, because although personally he liked Obama, he also has a lot of respect of McCain for his "Maverick" brand, military background and experience (My friends Uncle died in 'Nam), and general rejection of the extremist religious agenda of the cultural warrior style Republicans.

2012, he liked and respected Romney, because of his Gubernatorial record in Mass, as well Obama.... I was living in NorCal at the time, so can't state definitively that he voted Romney, but suspect that was likely the case.

In 2016, he almost definitely did not vote Clinton in the GE, and although he disliked and despised much of Trump's style and substance, did support the more economic protectionist Trump messages (Minus the whole anti-immigrant Latino thing, Muslim bans and all that crap).... He was a strong Bernie backer in the primaries..... My suspicion is that he likely wrote-in Bernie rather than voting for either Trump or Clinton.

 on: Today at 02:36:00 am 
Started by Dwarven Dragon - Last post by Dwarven Dragon
Let's see what Atlas thinks you should go to prison for. From the very serious to the (to me) quite silly. This should be interesting.

(Also, at 87 options, this might be the longest poll in the history of the forum.)

 on: Today at 02:31:08 am 
Started by Eharding - Last post by Nicholas_Roberts
For now, Bernie Sanders.
lol he's not even a member of the party.

Anyway, the answer is Obama.

Yes, but he ways a ton of influence over Democratic voters and policy of the party. But when you get down to it, there is no leader. In the way I interpret the role, he is the de-facto leader, I suppose.

 on: Today at 02:30:10 am 
Started by JAIL FOR FLYNN - Last post by Senator PiT

True Leftism always has the potential to become obnoxious at a certain point, but I will always respect people who place their principles ad beliefs above blind partisan allegiance  

     While I am biased in this regard, I find it refreshing to see a leftist who is unwilling to ignore the Democrats' foibles. That he gets so much flack for refusing to fall in line and pile on the President only makes the difference more stark.

I will say I disagree with most of what Trump is doing and his cabinet is pretty bad, but Greenwall has it right, we can't decide that the CIA is awesome because they criticized Trump.

     I'm sure I agree with Trump a lot more than you do, but otherwise I agree with you here. This shortsighted tendency to overlook our own problems and this refusal to hold allies accountable to instead dig at opponents may be my least favorite aspect of partisan politics.

 on: Today at 02:29:48 am 
Started by ssuperflash - Last post by shua
I love how all the red avatars are turning on one another.

Reds devouring each other is the key to Western history, 1900-present.

I would say c. 1790 (fittingly for the subject of the thread)

 on: Today at 02:29:05 am 
Started by Senator Scott - Last post by Senator Scott
David Benatar argues that being brought into existence is never a benefit but is always a harm.  While most people believe that living is beneficial as long as the benefits of life outweigh the evil or the pain that they experience, Bentaur argues that this conclusion does not follow because 1) pain is bad, and 2) pleasure is good; but 3) the absence of pain is always good whether people exist or not, whereas 4) the absence of pleasure is only bad if people exist to be denied it.

There's more to the article that I referenced here, but I wanted to get some takes on the part of his argument that pertains to the intrinsic value of life.  Should life, assuming it has any value or meaning to it at all, be considered a negative?

 on: Today at 02:28:12 am 
Started by Lumine - Last post by AMA IL TUO PRESIDENTE!
FPP means that with these numbers, one of the big two parties will probably win a majority.

 on: Today at 02:26:11 am 
Started by ssuperflash - Last post by AMA IL TUO PRESIDENTE!
We don't agree on much, but FF. He seems to be triggering the right people and it helps that his detractors on the Democratic side are some of the worst posters here.

Can we all agree this is really stupid reasoning?

Anyways, I like Antonio even though he doesn't really seem to like me. He's made some great timelines and is generally a nice poster. His fit about something so pointless was pretty sad though and talking about burning down a party because his guy got 13 less votes was quite nauseating, but hopefully he'll come to grips soon enough.

Huh I don't remember saying anything negative about you.

 on: Today at 02:23:46 am 
Started by Blue3 - Last post by Senator PiT
The tragedy of American politics right now is that the Democrats richly deserve to lose, and deserve it more by the day apparently, but the country doesn't deserve for the Republicans to win.
Bullsh*t, this nation deserves all its got and then some. Spare the 'the country doesn't deserve this'. There's a lot of entitled idiots in this nation.

     Change it to the Republicans don't deserve to win and it's right on point. The bums that run this country suck, and more than ever I have little confidence that either party can work out what to do.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10

Login with username, password and session length


Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines