We have a new update on The Future of the Penny Arcade Forums.

Politics: Super Special Limited Edition

12357100

Posts

  • Metzger MeisterMetzger Meister It Gets Worse before it gets any better.Registered User regular
    Bernie Sanders I think would have a good shot at getting the nomination if he ran.

  • MaximumMaximum Registered User regular
    Bernie Sanders I think would have a good shot at getting the nomination if he ran.

    For President?

    He'd need money, lots of it, and corporations are not going to be donating money to him. Plus he'd be 75 in 2016.

  • Metzger MeisterMetzger Meister It Gets Worse before it gets any better.Registered User regular
    He's a billionaire. He could fund the entire campaign himself and still be impossibly wealthy. Plus, being a billionaire, he probably has all kinds of rad robit parts that'll keep him alive for another fifty years.

  • knitdanknitdan Registered User regular
    Bernie Sanders? A billionaire?

    “I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
    -Indiana Solo, runner of blades
  • MaximumMaximum Registered User regular
    Also, I think you are seriously overestimating the number of progressives in this country.

    Like, President of the Northeast Corridor? Landslide victory. President of Everything West of Nevada? Sure thing.

    President of the United States? Ehh...no.

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited October 2014
    knitdan wrote: »
    Bernie Sanders? A billionaire?

    He's worth $110,000 net.

    joshofalltrades on
  • JasconiusJasconius sword criminal mad onlineRegistered User regular
    uhh. where are you getting this Bernie Sanders billionaire idea from

    i'm not even sure he's a millionaire

    this is a discord of mostly PA people interested in fighting games: https://discord.gg/DZWa97d5rz

    we also talk about other random shit and clown upon each other
  • JasconiusJasconius sword criminal mad onlineRegistered User regular
    maybe this is a Freudian slip by metzger and he has inadvertently revealed that he is a hardcore Ross Perot fan

    this is a discord of mostly PA people interested in fighting games: https://discord.gg/DZWa97d5rz

    we also talk about other random shit and clown upon each other
  • knitdanknitdan Registered User regular
    are you sure you're not confusing him with Bernie Madoff or Colonel Sanders?

    “I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
    -Indiana Solo, runner of blades
  • MaximumMaximum Registered User regular
    Metzger is Admiral Stockdale.

  • Metzger MeisterMetzger Meister It Gets Worse before it gets any better.Registered User regular
    Wait... I might be thinking of someone else.

    Or getting two people all amalgamated and shit.

  • JasconiusJasconius sword criminal mad onlineRegistered User regular
    according to this, Sanders has a net work of 110k

    http://www.rollcall.com/politics/us-senate-personal-wealth-111th-congress.html

    i think there are heiresses purse dogs that have a higher net worth

    this is a discord of mostly PA people interested in fighting games: https://discord.gg/DZWa97d5rz

    we also talk about other random shit and clown upon each other
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited October 2014
    Goddammit Jasc I just posted that

    Does nobody read my posts

    joshofalltrades on
  • JasconiusJasconius sword criminal mad onlineRegistered User regular
    blame vanilla forum and the #latest auto-scroll

    this is a discord of mostly PA people interested in fighting games: https://discord.gg/DZWa97d5rz

    we also talk about other random shit and clown upon each other
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    Jasconius wrote: »
    blame vanilla forum and the #latest auto-scroll

    NO
    <3

  • JasconiusJasconius sword criminal mad onlineRegistered User regular
    edited October 2014
    its an easy mistake to make

    Bernie Sanders goes on multi-hour rants about income inequality in america on the senate floor every year, so naturally you assume he's literally the wealthiest elected national official since basically George Washington

    Jasconius on
    this is a discord of mostly PA people interested in fighting games: https://discord.gg/DZWa97d5rz

    we also talk about other random shit and clown upon each other
  • Metzger MeisterMetzger Meister It Gets Worse before it gets any better.Registered User regular
    http://youtu.be/3kEpZWGgJks

    Civil forfeiture, or "we're the police and can take your shit if we even SUSPECT that you were naughty and there's not shit you can do about it and we need margarita machines and also we're not gonna charge you but we still get to keep your stuff no takesies-backsies."

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    I was just at Sam's Club Scrooging so hard at all the Christmas stuff already up

    Basically what I'm saying is if you want my vote, huge flashy Christmas displays that are way bigger than anything you have up for Halloween in the first half of October should be illegal

  • FyndirFyndir Registered User regular
    If I may be permitted to briefly scream into this pillow about UK politics and upcoming elections?
    Broadcasters have announced plans to host and invite political leadership to three televised debates relating to the 2015 general election.
    There would be:

    One head-to-head debate between the "two leaders who could become prime minister", Mr Cameron and Labour's Ed Miliband, on Sky and Channel 4 and chaired by Jeremy Paxman

    Another, also to include the Liberal Democrat leader, to be hosted by David Dimbleby, on BBC TV, radio and online

    Another debate, on ITV and chaired by Julie Etchingham, featuring the leaders of the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats and UK Independence Party

    So what are the problems?

    For starters trying to treat this like a two party race in one debate, and in doing so leaving out one of the parties currently in government (for any who don't know we currently have a Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government, with a Conservative Prime Minister and Liberal Democrat Deputy Prime Minister) is weird at best and a transparent attempt by the broadcasters to alter the result at worst.

    Following on from that we have the invitation extended to UKIP for one of these debates, elevating them (1MP) to the same level as the other three included parties while ignoring the Greens (1MP), RESPECT (1MP), the Alliance Party (1MP, Northern Irish party) Plaid Cymru (3 MPs, Welsh party), the Social Democratic and Labour Party (3 MPs, Nothern Irish party), Sinn Féin (5 MPs, Northern Irish party, although admittedly abstentionists) the Scottish National Party (6 MPs, Scottish party), and the Democratic Unionist Party (8 MPs, Northern Irish party). This is consistent with the bizarre amount of media attention given to UKIP and almost no other minor party, they are plastered all over the news on a regular basis, often in a positive light.

    For reference there are a total of 650 seats in the house of commons. I could entirely understand leaving out parties who have few seats, and I could entirely understand wanting to focus on primarily English parties (thus leaving out the various NI parties, Plaid Cymru, and the SNP), but that doesn't explain the exclusion of the Greens, or of RESPECT, and this turning a spotlight onto UKIP is giving them a huge amount of extra national exposure after their already huge amount of national exposure for winning that seat, on top of the general huge amount of national exposure they are given on a regular basis for no good reason that I can fathom...it just leaves bile in my throat to see the media act this way while pretending to be impartial, and it seems as though they are deliberately trying to drag the political landscape to the right by giving such prominence to a right wing party while giving no equivalent prominence to a left wing party to provide any semblance of balance.

  • SnicketysnickSnicketysnick The Greatest Hype Man in WesterosRegistered User regular
    Fyndir wrote: »
    If I may be permitted to briefly scream into this pillow about UK politics and upcoming elections?
    Broadcasters have announced plans to host and invite political leadership to three televised debates relating to the 2015 general election.
    There would be:

    One head-to-head debate between the "two leaders who could become prime minister", Mr Cameron and Labour's Ed Miliband, on Sky and Channel 4 and chaired by Jeremy Paxman

    Another, also to include the Liberal Democrat leader, to be hosted by David Dimbleby, on BBC TV, radio and online

    Another debate, on ITV and chaired by Julie Etchingham, featuring the leaders of the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats and UK Independence Party

    So what are the problems?

    For starters trying to treat this like a two party race in one debate, and in doing so leaving out one of the parties currently in government (for any who don't know we currently have a Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government, with a Conservative Prime Minister and Liberal Democrat Deputy Prime Minister) is weird at best and a transparent attempt by the broadcasters to alter the result at worst.

    Following on from that we have the invitation extended to UKIP for one of these debates, elevating them (1MP) to the same level as the other three included parties while ignoring the Greens (1MP), RESPECT (1MP), the Alliance Party (1MP, Northern Irish party) Plaid Cymru (3 MPs, Welsh party), the Social Democratic and Labour Party (3 MPs, Nothern Irish party), Sinn Féin (5 MPs, Northern Irish party, although admittedly abstentionists) the Scottish National Party (6 MPs, Scottish party), and the Democratic Unionist Party (8 MPs, Northern Irish party). This is consistent with the bizarre amount of media attention given to UKIP and almost no other minor party, they are plastered all over the news on a regular basis, often in a positive light.

    For reference there are a total of 650 seats in the house of commons. I could entirely understand leaving out parties who have few seats, and I could entirely understand wanting to focus on primarily English parties (thus leaving out the various NI parties, Plaid Cymru, and the SNP), but that doesn't explain the exclusion of the Greens, or of RESPECT, and this turning a spotlight onto UKIP is giving them a huge amount of extra national exposure after their already huge amount of national exposure for winning that seat, on top of the general huge amount of national exposure they are given on a regular basis for no good reason that I can fathom...it just leaves bile in my throat to see the media act this way while pretending to be impartial, and it seems as though they are deliberately trying to drag the political landscape to the right by giving such prominence to a right wing party while giving no equivalent prominence to a left wing party to provide any semblance of balance.

    On the plus side this is at least only an initial proposal but smacks of not really thinking things through properly.

    7qmGNt5.png
    D3 Steam #TeamTangent STO
  • StericaSterica Yes Registered User, Moderator mod
    Weaver wrote: »
    POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD

    (I totally forgot today was even Columbus Day. That's how little I regard Columbus)

    YL9WnCY.png
  • This content has been removed.

  • StericaSterica Yes Registered User, Moderator mod
    I added a link to that in the OP last week!

    YL9WnCY.png
  • ChincymcchillaChincymcchilla Registered User regular
    Hello hi I'm just here to say I went to a wedding of two lesbian friends in my home state this weekend and I'm super happy for NC right now

    I have a podcast about Power Rangers:Teenagers With Attitude | TWA Facebook Group
  • LanglyLangly Registered User regular
    Jasconius wrote: »
    It's less about the strength of Hillary and more about the republican candidates always coming off as creeps or cold, robotic puppets of monied interests. They are so nakedly showing themselves as the party of Angry White Men, and an increasingly diverse nation will vote for that less and less.

    this is why Jeb Bush is a good candidate

    Bush is well educated, soft spoken, not tightly integrated with the business community to the point of suspicion like Romney was and W. was sometimes perceived to be, overtly moderate, well funded, respectable record as Governor, and he speaks fluent spanish to boot

    He is many things that the puppets that get put on TV are not, and he is so different from his brother, outwardly and inwardly that I think the public would dismiss his last name

    I haven't read past this but him being the third bush elected in thirty years would be a constant, constant talking point. It would not be dismissed.

  • JasconiusJasconius sword criminal mad onlineRegistered User regular
    Langly wrote: »
    Jasconius wrote: »
    It's less about the strength of Hillary and more about the republican candidates always coming off as creeps or cold, robotic puppets of monied interests. They are so nakedly showing themselves as the party of Angry White Men, and an increasingly diverse nation will vote for that less and less.

    this is why Jeb Bush is a good candidate

    Bush is well educated, soft spoken, not tightly integrated with the business community to the point of suspicion like Romney was and W. was sometimes perceived to be, overtly moderate, well funded, respectable record as Governor, and he speaks fluent spanish to boot

    He is many things that the puppets that get put on TV are not, and he is so different from his brother, outwardly and inwardly that I think the public would dismiss his last name

    I haven't read past this but him being the third bush elected in thirty years would be a constant, constant talking point. It would not be dismissed.

    its a weak argument coming from someone whose last name is Clinton. Do you really think she's going to get behind the podium and take a dump on political dynasties? that's her whole game.

    this is a discord of mostly PA people interested in fighting games: https://discord.gg/DZWa97d5rz

    we also talk about other random shit and clown upon each other
  • StericaSterica Yes Registered User, Moderator mod
    No, but other people most certainly will.

    We've had ONE Clinton in the White House 15 years ago. Bush is more recent, and there's already been two of them. It's a goofy talking point, but it's one that gets traction.

    YL9WnCY.png
  • Metzger MeisterMetzger Meister It Gets Worse before it gets any better.Registered User regular
    Plus Bush's presidency isn't nearly as highly regarded as Clinton's.

  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    Yeah Clinton could ignore it entirely, but ads would run and something about 3rd bush in 3 decades and probably a baseball thing about 3 strikes in there somewhere would get a ton of free press. It's too snappy not to be eaten up by the media

  • StericaSterica Yes Registered User, Moderator mod
    Plus Bush's presidency isn't nearly as highly regarded as Clinton's.
    Yeah, this is key. Clinton is regarded fairly highly, where the most recent Bush presidency is quickly being considered one of the worst.

    Bush 41 was kind of a Diet Reagan thing I guess, but he lost reelection to Clinton which doesn't bode well for the Bush Legacy.

    YL9WnCY.png
  • JasconiusJasconius sword criminal mad onlineRegistered User regular
    edited October 2014
    George W. Bush's favorability rating is currently several points higher than Hillary's (!!!)

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/171794/clinton-elder-bush-positively-rated-living-presidents.aspx
    http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

    You guys think its a weakness, polls seem to say that American's give somewhere along the lines of zero fucks.

    A big component of this is many here make the assumption that us being back in Iraq is a negative thing for the Bush name, but in my opinion it actually makes Bush look better. Because hey if even the Democrats are bombing sand then maybe ol' W. was on to something

    And if your argument is that W. created the mess in Iraq, well, the fine citizens of post-Qadaffi Libya would like a word, because that country is basically a brutal war zone mostly created by Obama's policy critique of neocon involvement in the Middle East, which was to let Europe do the shooting and let the CIA try to mop up at arm's length. The result? Basically the same fucking thing on a Libyan scale. Warlords, slaughter, terrorists. We just get to pretend it's not our fault because there were no tanks with US flags pulling down statues and no mission accomplished banners

    Jasconius on
    this is a discord of mostly PA people interested in fighting games: https://discord.gg/DZWa97d5rz

    we also talk about other random shit and clown upon each other
  • Virgil_Leads_YouVirgil_Leads_You Proud Father House GardenerRegistered User regular
    Jasconius wrote: »
    George W. Bush's favorability rating is currently several points higher than Hillary's (!!!)

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/171794/clinton-elder-bush-positively-rated-living-presidents.aspx
    http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

    You guys think its a weakness, polls seem to say that American's give somewhere along the lines of zero fucks.

    A big component of this is many here make the assumption that us being back in Iraq is a negative thing for the Bush name, but in my opinion it actually makes Bush look better. Because hey if even the Democrats are bombing sand then maybe ol' W. was on to something

    And if your argument is that W. created the mess in Iraq, well, the fine citizens of post-Qadaffi Libya would like a word, because that country is basically a brutal war zone mostly created by Obama's policy critique of neocon involvement in the Middle East, which was to let Europe do the shooting and let the CIA try to mop up at arm's length. The result? Basically the same fucking thing on a Libyan scale. Warlords, slaughter, terrorists. We just get to pretend it's not our fault because there were no tanks with US flags pulling down statues and no mission accomplished banners

    We haven't spent 2 trillion on an invasion into Libya, or spent years trying to occupy it.
    Basically we used air power to stop a planned genocide by Muammar Gaddafi, as Libya's own people battled to liberate themselves.
    That war was already happening, we didn't just start some trouble because "intel thinks they have nukes".

    The citizens of Libya would be pretty pissed that America even tried to take credit for their battles.

    VayBJ4e.png
  • Virgil_Leads_YouVirgil_Leads_You Proud Father House GardenerRegistered User regular
    Libya hates us so much it's one of the few places in the region where over 50% approve of U.S. leadership.
    Wait...

    VayBJ4e.png
  • JasconiusJasconius sword criminal mad onlineRegistered User regular
    are you sure those results are accurate? it's hard to take phone calls from a pollster when you are barricaded inside of a hotel under pain of death

    this is a discord of mostly PA people interested in fighting games: https://discord.gg/DZWa97d5rz

    we also talk about other random shit and clown upon each other
  • -Tal-Tal Registered User regular
    bush vs clinton what is this 1992 you can have that one for free john oliver

    PNk1Ml4.png
  • Clint EastwoodClint Eastwood My baby's in there someplace She crawled right inRegistered User regular
    It would be good to have somebody who is not related to another president be the next president I think

  • JasconiusJasconius sword criminal mad onlineRegistered User regular
    It would be good to have somebody who is not related to another president be the next president I think

    One man answers the call

    article-urn:publicid:ap.org:0ac626f49c2343bf869ee6598d06383e-6TNLq5F6R-HSK1-390_634x527.jpg

    this is a discord of mostly PA people interested in fighting games: https://discord.gg/DZWa97d5rz

    we also talk about other random shit and clown upon each other
  • Clint EastwoodClint Eastwood My baby's in there someplace She crawled right inRegistered User regular
    I really like the face on old red sweater there. He's real excited about Rand. Real Randy.

  • StericaSterica Yes Registered User, Moderator mod
    Jasconius wrote: »
    George W. Bush's favorability rating is currently several points higher than Hillary's (!!!)

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/171794/clinton-elder-bush-positively-rated-living-presidents.aspx
    http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

    You guys think its a weakness, polls seem to say that American's give somewhere along the lines of zero fucks.

    A big component of this is many here make the assumption that us being back in Iraq is a negative thing for the Bush name, but in my opinion it actually makes Bush look better. Because hey if even the Democrats are bombing sand then maybe ol' W. was on to something

    And if your argument is that W. created the mess in Iraq, well, the fine citizens of post-Qadaffi Libya would like a word, because that country is basically a brutal war zone mostly created by Obama's policy critique of neocon involvement in the Middle East, which was to let Europe do the shooting and let the CIA try to mop up at arm's length. The result? Basically the same fucking thing on a Libyan scale. Warlords, slaughter, terrorists. We just get to pretend it's not our fault because there were no tanks with US flags pulling down statues and no mission accomplished banners
    You're comparing a person that is retired to one that that is still active. There's what, a ten point difference? That suggest Hill-dog is still quite popular, and those polls just reinforce that Americans have short memories. It'll be an issue, but I still think it's a stupid one. However, I also think the GOP is probably done with the Bushes in general.

    Our historical involvement with the Middle East has been a clusterfuck of mass suffering for our varying self-interests that finally bit us in the ass starting in the 90s. We frankly have no business in the goddamn region, because every time we meddle in their affairs we just make things worse. Obama is really just Diet Bush in terms of his handling of the situation, and that's why things continue to get worse. I will not try to pretend that I like Obama's foreign policy, as we've basically created an environment where everything we do is a losing move.

    YL9WnCY.png
This discussion has been closed.