jamest wrote:I haven't followed the news sufficiently plus this is a long thread, so forgive me for asking whether he has put forward any concrete proposals for 'dealing' with Muslims?

Oldskeptic wrote:

Something that struck me about Trump's acceptance speech last night was that besides striking Mussolini poses after his sound bites/rants, he didn't really deviate from Bernie Sanders' stump speech and smears of Hillary by Sanders' supporters.

Boyle wrote:
So, when we hand over control to our assuredly benevolent technocratic overlords, do we get to vote on who that overlord is or is it done through chess games?

quas wrote:

Boyle wrote:
So, when we hand over control to our assuredly benevolent technocratic overlords, do we get to vote on who that overlord is or is it done through chess games?

Rock paper scissors between Elon Musk and Bill Gates is a good option too. Definitely better than voting Hillary or Trump.

willhud9 wrote:

Teague wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

Teague wrote:

The sentence before that wasn't though, was it?

Yes it was. I don't think any of the candidates this year are particularly revolutionary. Even dear Sanders was not particularly revolutionary. He simply called for extensions on federal programs. Nice ideology, but not very practical in this political climate. Now if Sanders was young, charismatic, not a white male he may have stood a better chance against Clinton this time around.

Then you're obviously blind - money out of politics would literally be, revolutionary but only people interested in democracy would have voted for the only candidate making it his number one goal.

Yeah there is a difference between being blind and hopefully optimistic.

Campaigns cost money. Plain and simple. Whether it be a limited amount of tax payer money given to each candidate or whether it be individual donations campaigns raise campaigns are funded. Now you and other countries may feel that you should apportion tax payer dollars to help fund campaigns and you guys have every right to that, just as other countries have the right to use tax apportioned money to pay for churches and clergy, but me personally, I don't want my tax dollars being used to fund campaigns when I can think of a million better things to spend that money on.

Oldskeptic wrote:

Teague wrote:
The US is so fucked right now that it's worth a try.

Well yeah, the US is oh so fucked and a terrible place to live, or at least that's what those on the far left and the far right keep telling everyone. Interesting that as of January 2016 Gallup has 85% of the US population generally satisfied with their lives. If you want to add somewhat dissatisfied and no opinion to satisfied that leaves only 6% very dissatisfied. Not quite enough to imply that the US is so fucked anything is worth a try. Or that what is needed is a social or political revolution.

And before someone pops off with some black vs white satisfaction dichotomy there is this from Gallup.



Eighty-eight percent of blacks satisfied with their lives, 87% of whites satisfied with their lives.

Do we really need a revolution in order to try to make 6% of the population less than very dissatisfied with their lives? Being something of a student of human nature I don't think there is anything that would make all of them or even some of them happier.

Hell, out of the people I know, those doing the most and loudest grumbling about their lives are those with the most.

Teague wrote:You have the least 2 favoured politicians in history and one is going to become president so fuck it, why not. I really can't think of anything worse that could happen no matter what people try.

Who fucking cares? How much a person is liked or disliked personally has little or nothing to do with whether someone can get elected or do the job. We're not electing a prom queen; more like the most likely to succeed. Seven of the last ten elections were won by the least liked candidate. And through it all 'mericans have been fairly happy with their lives; bouncing up and down from 77% to 87%.

willhud9 wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/21/politics/peter-thiel-gay-republican-national-convention/

I mean there are gay Republicans.

And as I said before I identify as a Republican. I reject the party's platform, but I still actively write my state's party conventions and the national convention about why, my voice as a registered Republican also deserves to be heard and represented in my party.

jamest wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

jamest wrote:I haven't followed the news sufficiently plus this is a long thread, so forgive me for asking whether he has put forward any concrete proposals for 'dealing' with Muslims?

Built a wall in the Atlantic.

Are muslims good swimmers?

Oldskeptic wrote:

Teague wrote:
The US is so fucked right now that it's worth a try.

Well yeah, the US is oh so fucked and a terrible place to live, or at least that's what those on the far left and the far right keep telling everyone. Interesting that as of January 2016 Gallup has 85% of the US population generally satisfied with their lives. If you want to add somewhat dissatisfied and no opinion to satisfied that leaves only 6% very dissatisfied. Not quite enough to imply that the US is so fucked anything is worth a try. Or that what is needed is a social or political revolution.

And before someone pops off with some black vs white satisfaction dichotomy there is this from Gallup.



Eighty-eight percent of blacks satisfied with their lives, 87% of whites satisfied with their lives.

Do we really need a revolution in order to try to make 6% of the population less than very dissatisfied with their lives? Being something of a student of human nature I don't think there is anything that would make all of them or even some of them happier.

Hell, out of the people I know, those doing the most and loudest grumbling about their lives are those with the most.

Teague wrote:You have the least 2 favoured politicians in history and one is going to become president so fuck it, why not. I really can't think of anything worse that could happen no matter what people try.

Who fucking cares? How much a person is liked or disliked personally has little or nothing to do with whether someone can get elected or do the job. We're not electing a prom queen; more like the most likely to succeed. Seven of the last ten elections were won by the least liked candidate. And through it all 'mericans have been fairly happy with their lives; bouncing up and down from 77% to 87%.