The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

Every single democrat voted no on this bill and only 12 republicans voted no. 50 republicans in the Senate voted yes (two didn't vote), and an additional 220 or so republicans in the house voted yes. Democrats? Zero. In both houses. Quit your bullshit about the two parties being the same, because that's exactly what it is: bullshit.

Oh yeah? Well I supported Johnson and Sanders, and even Warren, and guess where their votes went?

Trump and republicans are assholes. I literally only argue in "who wouldn't have been an *******". Well, Sanders and Johnson and Warren wouldn't have been. If **** gets bad enough, maybe the democrats will either use a real candidate next election, or we can finally get fed up enough to have a real political party.

Meanwhile, I hold no allegiance to Trump, I will vote Max Temkin if he were to run for president, but I'm still not willing to vote Hillary. If De Leon was nominated, guess who I STILL wouldn't vote for? Shame me if you want, I'm satisfied that liberal's lives will get progressively more shitty the longer this goes on, until they either ironically shoot me (but they'll never wipe the sh*t-eating grin off my face), or you change politics so your party doesn't totally suck.

Biased much?

I know I bring up healthcare reform a lot, but why do BOTH parties install bad FDA, EPA, Education, and Healthcare plans? To maintain status quo of Big Oil, Big Pharma, Subsidized farm products, and the high cost of education.

I refused to respect the Democrat party, when it's 99% the same shtuff, with some good and some bad perks. Gun control, I'm for sensible gun control, not redundant and oppressive gun control. Healthcare, I'm for sensible healthcare, not oppressive healthcare. That's something that shouldn't even be oppressive. No legalization of marijauna after an 8 year administration, no excuses there.

Someone's party, will "git gud" before I support them. No Excuses. I have shown people who are acceptably high-ranking on a good candidate, and you've watched them get edged out by... Donald Trump, really? Hillary Clinton, really? Really, they were better? Even Libertarians say Gary Johnson wasn't the "best" candidate, but that was in full recognition of his stance in the center of all the parties, as someone who's willing to run and manage a government, cooperate with democrat and republican ideas, and keep necessary programs, with experience doing so for a state.

I interpret this as you agreeing with me on most stuff then and your constant attacks onto Democrats and Hillary are mostly the result of anger about the situation.

Which, given that you're in the middle of it and not just watching from the other side of the planet, is understandable.

this isn't a comedy central video

wtf
http://www.pennlive.com/capitol-notebook/2017/03/scott_wagner_explains_climate.html

Gorbles said it best himself. "Democrats don't owe Sanders anything, Sanders isn't the best candidate running on the Democrat platform". Well, why do I owe a party who lacks any of my personal best interests, a vote? The fact that Sanders was cross-platform and still so popular, shows that people, I, do NOT want corporate democrats. I wasn't going for Hillary, if it's a package deal then I will, and did, vote Libertarian. "Why do I like Libertarians and Progressives, two opposite sides of the political spectrum"? Because, Bernie wasn't inflammatory-progressive, he wasn't corporate, he was social and civil works, he ran on the platform of what people wanted from the government. Really, Libertarians run on the same platform, entirely differently. They ran on "what people actually want", you can't tell me I am not allowed to vote for someone on the grounds of small government and scaling back federal influences. A lot of "law enforcement reform", with oppressive legislation directed towards many sources, and with actual enforcement, hinges on reducing central government, but if I demand the Democrats to actually pursue fixing the laws and enforcement policies, I'm a pothead and a basement dweller (I don't even smoke, either).

I don't vote broken, it needs fixed or in another year and a half i'll probably be supporting local elections for 3rd-party and/or independent. I'm not even terrifically political, but this last election got annoying and now it's really getting obvious that attention needs to be paid.

I would even vote Democrat if they had a lot to offer. Honestly, Bill was a great democrat president, he got a little comfortable with foreign policy but his domestic policy was pretty stable, his nonsense was tolerable, back when corporate ties weren't so deep and edgy agendas like abortion and gun control weren't "just to spite the other party". He was the last president to balance the budget and achieve a surplus? Make that a campaign promise complete with plan of action, and I'd vote for it. I'd even vote to RAISE taxes if they're going to a good cause.

http://qklnk.co/LzviJV

Takei is considering running for office. On a note of consistency, anyone new entering office can show promise, but his history shows a former consistency, tainted with a recent extremism.


I do support new people entering politics, opposed to the long-time corporate installed of yesteryear, because I want them to succeed and by extension the citizens to succeed as well. I have some concerns, it would help if he addresses them rather than don the skin of the stereotypical democrat.

-Pay attention to actual problems in the party and DON'T emulate, stimulate, or become complacent to them.

-De Leon, his gun control speech is infamous, he can get more votes by sticking to factual logic with gun control, than he can do with agenda, and he can gain votes by respecting those on both sides of party lines.

-ACA was a disaster, do NOT support it, support some other reach of healthcare. That shtuff loses elections, come to terms with that.

-Overenforcement is a huge problem. He's a very pocket civil rights advocate, do NOT pursue censorship laws, it is NOT the government's place to "euthanize and incarcerate the ignorant white cis males", that ALSO loses elections because as we all found out last election, even 40% of women won't go for overbearing laws.

-When he says he'll legalize marijuana (which he should), then actually advocate to do it, vote to do it, just follow through and do it. Don't not do it, Hillary'd win if Obama'd done it.

-He doesn't need to make enemies of the other party, to make friends with his party. He can burn bridges with the alt right and the extremist christian if he wants, but it's a show of good faith not to persecute them either, with censorship or religion bans in public or all that nonsense. Simply protect one, while not outlawing the other, and he can reduce a lot of government reach, or since he's likely not of the libertarian platform, he'll free it up for other government out-reach instead.

In short, prioritize benefits for the people, over witch hunts and prohibitions. Prohibitions are the cancer of modern political parties.

Note what day it is Trophy.

Ugh, really? Idk, it sounded legit (he posted it the day before methinks? not bothered to look at it).

It'd be even funnier if he were joking. He's running in the same district as the head of the Trump investigation.

*resorts to default "I was joking about believing the joke" excuse*

admit it you can't help yourself running headlong into things. So much so you forget april first is even a thing.

back on the ISP data collection thing : it can be a bit confusing so I've found an article which explains the situation a bit :
https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/29/e...on-to-expose-your-data-to-internet-providers/

Scott Wagner will be the next govenor of Pa. He is a savvy politican and a terrible scientist.

That's middle-school grade science.

When I read that I thought it was a April Fool's joke until I read the date.

Well excuuuse me for "being pranked". Because people making up **** about "serious political stuff" is so cool. Hey, I laugh at autistic people. APRIL FOOLS. What, that too serious, but not politics?

Also, Russia admitted election interference today. Guess that means it's an April Fool's joke, so it didn't happen. #halflife3confirmed

Did I mention, that a casual look at Google Images, shows that out of all the people who've spent their storage and internet, on Daily Show based images, have way more media showing up in Google Search featuring John Stewart, 3 to 1, than they do for prickface?

https://www.google.com/search?q=daily show drives me nuts&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjY-8eo8ITTAhVBeCYKHcvGC58Q_AUICigD&biw=1216&bih=649#tbm=isch&q=daily show&*

Undeniable proof how bad he is. The only other explanation, is that he wasn't on as long as Stewart was, but it's been... *looks up* a year and a half, on an election year. If anyone loved him more than his parents did, which I suspect is a vast threshold, then he'd have way more image media linking to him, way more than John Stewart within a year, considering how fast media replaces media on a google search.

You know, if given the choice to be allowed, to replace either Trump, or Noah, I'd... still choose Trump, only because I've given up on the Daily Show. I've not given up on America.

Also, with a functional president, 99% of America's problems would be solved (not instantly, mind you, it'd take 2 years to start bleeding congress of unsupportive corporate enthusiasts), and the Daily Show might actually go off the air from lack of material. Right now, it's obvious they'd be dry of material sans Trump. Or maybe, instead of go off air, they'll be forced to replace the host with someone who has talent. Who says you can't have your cake and eat it too?

It's not labeled "Daily Show", so I'll bite. Edit this in a bit.

Okay, honestly, it's a biased piece, but not nearly as bad as it could have been. It only compared it to Hitler at the end, and used the term "enabler" right. He has some followers who play to his tune. Those are not the ones that voted Libertarian or wrote in a name last election. Those people get heckled all the time and labeled as "enablers", "oh, you elected Trump by not electing Hillary", if you wonder why I bring it up so much, it's because it pisses me off, why couldn't the REST of the country, that we know aligns closer to Libertarian, have voted Libertarian for the very different and very wanted agenda that Libertarians platform on, such as balanced budget, legalized marijuana, and the best of both gun rights and marriage rights?

Real enablers, are the ones that enable politicians, to retain power, despite not doing them right for 8 years. Sort of like letting them do "bad things" out of blind "friendship". Sort of like Celebrities get away with.

why can't you agree with any trump hate? even your idol Gary Johnson had at it with the tongue stuck out thing yes it was a jab at trump and hillary both but it still counts. (at least I hope that's what he was going for xD otherwise it just leaves me really confused and then I'd just be joining the rest of the world in joint confusion having been the last person willing to make sense of that)

I MADE reference to an anti-Trump statement made by Penn back when I posted that really good libertarian video.

How can I not agree with one, when I made one!

I don't see many others agreeing, that the only way to fix democrat not serving the very same population that elects them, is to not elect them.

The happenstance of anything else is irrelevant. One should not enable a party due to happenstance. Otherwise, Trump merely needs run for Republican president the rest of his life, to keep Democrats in office, by "threat" more than "democracy".