Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 20, 2017, 09:55:58 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

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

 1 
 on: Today at 09:55:50 pm 
Started by PittsburghSteel - Last post by Ghost of Ruin
He will be among the worst.

He'll only inarguably be THE worst if he starts a major war, or causes states to secede, or causes a new revolution, or causes a great depression and a minor war.

He could start a civil war,  or a  domestic insurgency without any states even trying to secede. If there's any one thing Trump can be said to have done, it's encouraging divisions between Americans, and inciting American on American violence.

 2 
 on: Today at 09:55:37 pm 
Started by Torie - Last post by We Have A Pope
Alabama is about to elect a pedophile but yeah we're all on the same page.

No it isn't, but thanks for playing Smiley

 3 
 on: Today at 09:54:35 pm 
Started by Benedicamus Domino - Last post by Benedicamus Domino
https://www.buzzfeed.com/paulmcleod/she-complained-that-a-powerful-congressman-harassed-her?utm_term=.kx2E7glMR3#.xczwaoQxnA

 4 
 on: Today at 09:54:25 pm 
Started by Prime Minister Truman - Last post by rpryor03
rpryor
Democratic Alliance
Ulster

 5 
 on: Today at 09:52:58 pm 
Started by Mr. Morden - Last post by Mr. Morden
de Blasio (after just having announced an upcoming trip to Iowa) says he agrees with Gillibrand:

https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2017/11/20/de-blasio-says-he-agrees-with-gillibrand-saying-clinton-should-have-resigned-120432

Quote
“I don’t think you can rework history. I think if it happened today —  if any president did that today — they would have to resign,” de Blasio told reporters during an unrelated press conference in Queens.

 6 
 on: Today at 09:52:35 pm 
Started by Franzl - Last post by Ἅιδης
Interesting to see the divergence between single choice and multiple choice regarding who has to take responsibility for the failure of the "Jamaica" exploratory negotiations.

infratest dimap (ARD DeutschlandTrend): single choiceForschungsgruppe Wahlen (ZDF Politbarometer): mulitple choice



ZDF also includes the possibility of a grand coalition in "What to do next?", combined with a multiple choice form:

infratest dimap (ARD DeutschlandTrend): single choiceForschungsgruppe Wahlen (ZDF Politbarometer): mulitple choice



Who do you think would profit the most from snap elections?





Who do you think would snap elections do the most damage to?



 7 
 on: Today at 09:52:30 pm 
Started by RIP guaranteed R senate supermajority - Last post by Cath
Troglodyte.
I'm not old-fashioned or deliberately ignorant.

Maybe the word escapes me. Something running in the vein of “barbarian”. You have opted to display the scantily-clad body of a woman you presumably abuse yourself to in the signature of your account on a politics website.

 8 
 on: Today at 09:52:23 pm 
Started by Alabama_Indy10 - Last post by Figueira
No, because then rapists in the Senate would be worried they're next.

 9 
 on: Today at 09:52:07 pm 
Started by Çråbçæk - Last post by Chris Murphy 2020
I'd probably end up in Sanchez's camp, though I wouldn't mind backing Guillier in the general.

Navarro has some good policies, but backing the current regime in Venezuela is kind of a disqualifier for me. Artes is very lol (going from Marxist-Leninism, Maoism, ect). not a fan of neoliberalism so glad that Goic and the Christian Democrats decided to lose on their own. Kast is particularly grotesque and Pinera's presidency seems like a disaster.

so if I had to rank,

[1] Sanchez
[2] Guiller
[3] Navarro
[4] Artes
[5] Goic
[6] Pinera





[7] Kast

 10 
 on: Today at 09:50:47 pm 
Started by MB - Last post by Senator Scott🍂
I do believe that the United States is ripe for a split/secession movement along some lines so that, ideally, conservative and liberal Americans can "co-exist" without having the other side's policies forcibly imposed upon them after every election.
Of course, liberals in conservative secessionist states and conservatives in liberal secessionist states would still have "the other side's policies forcibly imposed upon them" — just by a government closer to home. Personally, I'm not particularly eager to see how the LGBTQ+ community would fare in the independent Republic of Alabama.

For that we have planes, trains, and automobiles.  We will never have utopia no matter what the government does or how the borders are drawn, but how can you maintain a stable republic where the likes of Bernie Sanders and Roy Moore share the power?
Why are we assuming that everyone can (or should) relocate to a state-turned-nation where their politics are in the majority? Even assuming an EU-style Schengen area is established in the former United States (and given the politics of immigration in places like Alabama and Texas, I'd say it's highly unlikely they would ever agree to such a system), that's just not a realistic proposition for most people. What, then, happens to the Obamacare patients in Alabama who suddenly lose their insurance when their state leaves the Union? What happens to the LGBT couple whose marriage is no longer legally recognized? This isn't "utopia" we're talking about, but we're all Americans and we have an obligation to look out for the rights and well being of our fellow citizens. It seems rather callous to abandon these people to the mercy of their states simply to avoid the difficulties of representative democracy in a pluralistic society.

As far as marriage rights and healthcare are concerned, presumably the liberal-leaning states would quickly adopt same-sex marriage and have an easier time transitioning to a better single or multi-payer healthcare system without resistance from the X number of states that only elect people who oppose those things, as well as environmental protection, abortion rights, voting rights, a living wage, etc.  Representative democracy only works if the citizenry shares some core values.  Polarization doesn't work in anybody's favor, especially in the United States which is arguably more politically polarized than it's been since the 1860s.  When you try to force national unity on an unwilling populace, tribalism becomes inevitable.  We are left with a no-win situation.

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


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines