deanb Posted January 13, 2016 Report Share Posted January 13, 2016 Fuck. Like I know it's been err...8 years(I cba to check atm) but still. On BBC this morning they did say it would likely not matter how his presidency would be perceived by either side, the moment he became president he was secured in the history books since he's the first black POTUS. (Much like Thatcher over here) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted January 13, 2016 Report Share Posted January 13, 2016 Presidents always age at an accelerated rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted January 13, 2016 Report Share Posted January 13, 2016 I never realised thatcher was black. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Mr. GOH! Posted January 13, 2016 Popular Post Report Share Posted January 13, 2016 Just her heart, TFG. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorgiShinobi Posted January 13, 2016 Report Share Posted January 13, 2016 When you have immeasurable responsibility and at all times at least half the country is against you, aging so rapidly is expected even of the most health of presidents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted January 13, 2016 Report Share Posted January 13, 2016 Imagine Hillary or Sanders going through a full two terms. Since this is 2016, I guess it is about time to start talking about the coming primaries and the eventual election in November. Regarding aging, I'm not convinced that Sanders would make it through two and I'm even kind of unsure about one term. His running mate will be very important person to consider. On ideas, I suppose he got them and due to his age he means it but how much he can get done is up in the air as well... As for Hillary... she will be fine? I doubt she can get much done with the Republicans though. If she goes through two full terms, can you imagine how she will look like in the end? Honestly though, it's the senators, representatives and how things are done that could really use a change. Not just the Oval Office. Not sure what but that is my feeling when I think about Washington DC... It's just so daunting that you can't help but to shut out any thoughts about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted January 14, 2016 Report Share Posted January 14, 2016 Probably more noticeable in younger leaders. 50-60 not as dramatic a change as 30-40. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredEffinChopin Posted January 14, 2016 Report Share Posted January 14, 2016 Planning for a cross-country march to “restore America” — which is related to the Oregon nature preserve standoff — appears to have hit a snag when one of its organizers shot the other co-founder Monday afternoon during a drunken argument over a gun. Sheriff’s deputies in Grayson County, Texas, have not released details about the fatal shooting, but social media posts by right-wing “patriots” associated with militants occupying an Oregon nature preserve identified the victim and shooter as the organizers of the Paul Revere 2016 Final March To Restore America. https://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/anti-obama-march-organizer-fatally-shoots-right-wing-militant-buddy-in-drunken-dispute-over-gun/ Also: Hillary Clinton's new focus on rival Bernie Sanders appears to be paying off — for Sanders. The Vermont senator had raised $1.9 million as of Thursday morning, following attacks this week from Clinton and her surrogates. About 66,000 people have donated to Sanders' presidential campaign since Tuesday afternoon when his camp sent out a fundraising appeal, highlighting Clinton's denunciations of his universal health-care plan. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/01/14/bernie-sanders-raises-millions-off-hillary-clinton-attack/78787484/ I also love how whenever Trump and Cruz move two points towards or away from each other, there are four articles about it on each news site, but when Quinnipiac shows the democratic frontrunner losing ground for the first time in Iowa and NH, not as many sites are discussing the polls for a few days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted January 15, 2016 Report Share Posted January 15, 2016 Well this isn't cringey at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted January 15, 2016 Report Share Posted January 15, 2016 That belongs to the Barney block in the early morning cartoons. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/02/02/sometimes-iowa-democrats-award-caucus-delegates-coin-flip/79680342/ A coin toss? Seriously? I mean they could at least play scissors, paper, stone. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 Our whole presidential nomination and election system is completely fucked. For instance, when you vote in a primary, you're not actually voting for a particular candidate, you're voting to send a delegate who's said they'll vote for that candidate to the convention. However, that delegate is not actually required to vote for that candidate, they can vote for whomever the fuck they want, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. It works the same way in the actual presidential election system too, in the electoral college the delegates can vote for whomever they want regardless of who they said they'd vote for that got them sent there (though it's very very rare that one changes their vote). Another fucked up thing about the nominations (thank god this part doesn't apply to the actual election) is that there are so-called "superdelegates" who get to vote for who the nominee is going to be but aren't actually selected in the primaries, they just get it automatically because they're party leadership or hold other elected positions. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 I used to think that whole system was a bad thing, but after seeing how popular Trump managed to become I'm starting to wonder if maybe it's a necessary evil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 "The Tyranny of the masses" Also if you're opposed to people being picked on popularity I've several alternative systems for you... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 Anybody here have election/caucus reform on their minds? This subject seems to come up every time since I came to voting age... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 Fuck it: What is a "caucus". Like I'm aware on the overall basics of your fucked up 18th century "democratic" system*, but what the hell does "caucus" even mean? Just sounds like "Cactus" but said by someone missing their teeth...and tongue,,.maybe even most their face. *Ours is by no means perfect, but we don't decide on coin tosses and usually the folks that can vote on the winner is in the tens of millions, not the tens. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 "Caucus" is an old-timey word for "breakout session." Which is what the caucuses are; they're small groups of members of a large political party that decide which candidate their local precinct will support. They are very undemocratic, but not as undemocratic as having a Queen, hereditary titles, or the House of Lords. Fun fact: the primary/caucus system is independent of the formal legal election system in many ways (although it is regulated by state and federal law, and state governments generally assist in the party primary system). The Founders of the U.S. explicitly tried to discourage political parties and factionalism. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 Hey we own our hereditary powers. Saves a lot more time embracing a structured aristocracy than not talking about it. Anyway not since the Pitt's, who I believe were around the time of the revolutionary war, have we had any related Prime Ministers (no doubt some will be related distantly). Two of your presidential candidates are related to presidents from within the last 20 years. If Hillary wins, then aside from the combo breaker that is Obama, you'll have gone Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. I understand that the POTUS doesn't hold absolute power and is only one arm of the Executive, Judicial and Legislative powers, but still much more power than our Queen. Anywho on the "Caucus" front, it related to any words? It does sound unlike really any other word, doesn't seem to have any root words. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 The Founders of the U.S. explicitly tried to discourage political parties and factionalism. And they did a bang-up job of it. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 No kidding. Factionalism began immediately. It's true, Dean, we do have political dynasties and we need to do more to break up hereditary power structures. And we've had related presidents before, but not as intensely as we have since 1988. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 Well, to be fair, it's only really going to seem like a densely packed time if Hillary wins. If she doesn't then it'll just be the two Bushes, which while father and son is pretty close as a one-off it doesn't seem super intense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 Clinton will win the Dem nomination. I do not want to contemplate a future in which whatever eldritch horror the GOP nominates wins in November. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted February 3, 2016 Report Share Posted February 3, 2016 @Dean: On etymology of "caucus" it appears to be a made up American word, like "copacetic". If I understand correctly the "caucus" is like the party leadership election. Similar to when Labour party members in the UK voted Corbyn as head of Labour, which is also fairly undemocratic in a "voice of the people" sense. Re: Democratic reform, forget it. It'll never happen because it means that people will have to learn a new thing and for most of the world learning shit is just way uncool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 3, 2016 Report Share Posted February 3, 2016 The caucus is for candidate election, not leadership election. Party leadership is elected at the party convention and not based on any kind of pretend popular vote. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted February 3, 2016 Report Share Posted February 3, 2016 How is the candidate different to the leader? Would the leader of the party not be the candidate??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.