• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About theguyfromtheVale

  • Rank
    Curry Murderer

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

3,188 profile views
  1. If there's enough Gore/Bush situations breaking in one direction, or too much gerrymandering, things might change, just as they did in NZ.
  2. I'm pretty sure the House will stay in Republican hands no matter what, with all that gerrymandering... so I'd rather think the "checked" option would turn out to be Clinton. Trump might well get his hands on the presidency with a Republican House and Senate, which means his power will be far more unchecked. Also, if Matt Lauer (sp?) is any guide, it's Trump who doesn't get the necessary scrutiny from the media. So, all this taken together, your logic should lead you to a Clinton vote, if anything.
  3. U.S. Elections 2016: It's Not A Lie, If YOU Believe It

    The USA might deserve Trump, although I doubt it. But since the US president is the most powerful person on Earth, the question becomes if the world deserves Donald Trump.
  4. U.S. Elections 2016: It's Not A Lie, If YOU Believe It

    Still, even a minor further shift in the polls might make this far too close for comfort. And those polls mostly haven't included Clinton's health troubles over last weekend just yet.
  5. U.S. Elections 2016: It's Not A Lie, If YOU Believe It

    The fact that her polling isn't all that great at this point in time? Most poll aggregators still have her as the favorite, but she's gone down from a ~85% chance of winning after the conventions to a ~65% chance of winning. That's not all that a convincing position to be in.
  6. I'm in quite a similar spot. I stopped dating my ex-coworker because we were both in the wrong place, as with both of us starting at new jobs and all that we were too stressed out to manage a relationship or anything resembling one. Still, we reestablished contact last week and hit it right off once again. We'll see where that goes.
  7. US Elections - There is 'Ahead in the Polls' behind you

    Pretty much.
  8. US Elections - There is 'Ahead in the Polls' behind you

    @Trebla: Well, in the broadest sense, "republic" just refers to a country which is not a monarchy. Which is why you can have democratic monarchies (e.g. the UK, Sweden, Norway, or the Netherlands) and undemocratic republics (China, Cuba,...). "Republic" is one of the few usually accurate terms in the broader sense; but there's a large number of (now mostly historical) examples of "democracies" that don't fit the definition of democracy, e.g. the "Democratic People's Republic of North Korea" (effectively a despotic monarchy), the "German Democratic Republic" (Republic in the broad sense, but still a one-party state and hence not a democracy) or similar examples.
  9. US Elections - There is 'Ahead in the Polls' behind you

    Do these people also think that North Korea is a democracy?
  10. US Elections - There is 'Ahead in the Polls' behind you

    @ummester: You're barking up the wrong tree; I'm not a US citizen. ETA: As for what America has to lose, there's still a difference between a self-made millionaire daughter of small business owners and the self-declared billionaire heir of a multi-million fortune in terms of actual plutocracy. The difference, here, is between allowing the rich too much access to power - or handing the power to the rich themselves. One need not like either to still have a preference. As for what I have to lose, not much, admittedly - but many of my friends have. Sometimes, policy preferences do not have to be about yourself for you to have an opinion, you know. Everything I've seen about Clinton running so far has been indicating that she'd not pursue TPP further, yes. If nothing else, her forcing pro-TPP Tim Kaine to change his stance means she wants to display a clear position on this issue. There's various ways she might have fudged the issue; she's consistently chosen one position on TPP since starting her campaign, and that position has been not to support TPP.
  11. US Elections - There is 'Ahead in the Polls' behind you

    Yes, they often fizzle out. But not always, and the risk of them turning the democracy into a dictatorship is too great for me to take that gamble.
  12. US Elections - There is 'Ahead in the Polls' behind you

    Agreed on Austria. Luckily, Schill fizzled out rather embarrasingly. As for France, its insitutions are pretty much build around a two-party system, and indeed it was until very recently.
  13. US Elections - There is 'Ahead in the Polls' behind you

    Sure. But in countries with multi-party systems, movements like the Tea Party or the Trumpites never even get to the point that they influence policy to the same extent, because the party that would be representing the establishment Republicans could simply decide not to form a coalition with them, something they have no choice not to do in a two-party system.
  14. US Elections - There is 'Ahead in the Polls' behind you

    I agree with much of what you're saying there, HE. Not with everything; I think there are some choices too terrible to make (hence constitutional safeguards, checks and balances, and so on), in particular the democratic choice to end democracy or develop into a tyranny of the majority where the losers of the last election get entirely disenfranchised. I wouldn't claim to have the perfect answers to those problems either, though. But while I see the falsification argument for two-party democracies, I'm a bit reluctant to follow it to its conclusions. In particular, I fear that a two-party system is in some ways worse at getting rid of bad ideas if these ideas keep lingering on in the ideological background of one of the two parties. In particular, I'd argue that racism is such a bad idea. But while in a multi-party democracy, non-racist conservatives have a choice of possible coalitions to make (e.g., they can ally with pro-market libertarians, racist right-wingers, or form a "grand coalition" with the social democrats), in a two-party system they can't actually get rid of their in-party racists the same way. When more than one quarter of the populace has a certain idea that is abhorrent to the rest of the populace, in a three- or more-party democracy the other parties can still make sure that idea doesn't get into power. In a two-party democracy, that idea, discredited for the majority, will still be able to control government for about half of the time. ETA: In some ways, what I'm saying is that while multiparty democracies are bad at getting rid of moderately bad ideas, they may be in some ways better at getting rid of terrible ideas as long as the ability to compromise is retained.
  15. US Elections - There is 'Ahead in the Polls' behind you

    That's a bit of an exaggeration, but I don't think it's entirely wrong. I think some general directions of what they want to achieve is still desirable; that's why we should have an election, after all. But inside those rough ideological guidelines, I still want somebody who can deliberate issues with input from several perspectives instead of only their own. In a two-party system in particular, that's the case; in a multiparty democracy, the voters at least have a choice beyond the binary decision for the lesser of two evils.