|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
RationalWiki talk:What is going on with the elections?/Archive3
Hillary again[edit]
Something's up. Fowler is the first DNC official to confirm replacing Hillary is under discussion. And Fowler is an old Clinton toady going back to Bill's '96 reelection. Fowler would not be speaking publicly without the Clinton's approval.
If Hillary were to be replaced, one of three scenarios would give rise to it:
- Hillary voluntarily withdraws.
- Death or incapacition of the presidential nominee.
- A mutiny in the ranks; Hillary refuses to step aside despite growing evidence against her ability to serve. Donna Brazile calls a meeting demanded by what she percieves ia a majority of the committee who want to replace her.
It is to head off this third scenario why the Clinton camp has suggested open discussion and an orderly process.nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 05:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
The Johnson is surging?[edit]
Maybe he is using a lep-oh? What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 19:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- A more accurate title would be "Gary Johnson is Surging in Poll." 173.71.121.36 (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- I am making a joke. How obtuse can you be? What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 20:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I want Gary Johnson, and Jill Stein for that matter, on the debate stage now. Actually, I wish that they were the main 2 parties in this country. It would be a far better ideological representation of the populace, and a far more lively and productive political debate. PBfreespace (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- A woo peddler and a person too potted up on weed to remember what a lepp oh is? No thanks. I much rather take a policy wonk who is if anything overqualified versus a bloviating racist oompah-loompah that cannot tie his own shoelaces. A much better representation of both the good and the bad of America. You can say what you want about the two top dogs, but they are both interesting people. Trump the way a nuclear car crash is interesting and Hillary the way Napoleon Bonaparte, Oliver Cromwell or Julius Caesar are interesting. If you have made up your mind about any of those last three, you do not know enough about them and their time. I am not the Ombud's man 23:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- If Hillary were 10 or 15 years younger, yes, she just might be the man of the hour. But I don 't see her completing her term if she wins. She'll probably be on a 4 hour work day because of her health. This means you are really voting for the people around her, and her ability to make appointments. I've never been impressed with either.nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 07:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Trump's health is more worrying to me than Hillary's. Whatever afflicts Hillary is likely to affect her physical health but leave her mind sharp. With Trump it appears to be the other way round. Sorry, but we already had a dementia riddled lunatic in the white house. We have also had a paranoid drunkard. I don't want the world to try its luck once more with a orange buffoon whose vocabulary is getting smaller by the day. I am not the Ombud's man 17:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Didn't some people claim, that Saint Ronnie only faked being Alzheimer's to get out of any charges from the Iran-Contra affair or some similar shit?--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 16:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC) 16:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well that was what people thought at the time. "I can't recall" is a very frequent defense for politicians and Raygun did use it. However, he did suffer from dementia later in life and dementia is a gradual process and not a disease that simply appears one day fully formed. I am not the Ombud's man 17:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Partisanship aside, it's undeniable Hillary is suffering from some sort of TBI
. The damage done by a single concussion is permanent. Nuerologists have stated she is suffering from these effects. It's undeniable. There is cause to be concerned about her mind's effectiveness.nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 20:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Trump played Football in school. We all know what Football can do to your brain. And - I think I am repeating myself here - his father suffered from dementia. And dementia has a heritable quality to. Is there an established connection between Football and dementia? Don't ask me. Is it unreasonable to assume one? Not exactly. Honestly, given all that and the fact that Hillary is female and younger (two things that correlate positively with longer life expectancy) it is quite clear who is more likely to stay sane and alive all the way to 2020. I am not the Ombud's man 21:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Partisanship aside, it's undeniable Hillary is suffering from some sort of TBI
- Well that was what people thought at the time. "I can't recall" is a very frequent defense for politicians and Raygun did use it. However, he did suffer from dementia later in life and dementia is a gradual process and not a disease that simply appears one day fully formed. I am not the Ombud's man 17:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Didn't some people claim, that Saint Ronnie only faked being Alzheimer's to get out of any charges from the Iran-Contra affair or some similar shit?--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 16:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC) 16:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Trump's health is more worrying to me than Hillary's. Whatever afflicts Hillary is likely to affect her physical health but leave her mind sharp. With Trump it appears to be the other way round. Sorry, but we already had a dementia riddled lunatic in the white house. We have also had a paranoid drunkard. I don't want the world to try its luck once more with a orange buffoon whose vocabulary is getting smaller by the day. I am not the Ombud's man 17:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- If Hillary were 10 or 15 years younger, yes, she just might be the man of the hour. But I don 't see her completing her term if she wins. She'll probably be on a 4 hour work day because of her health. This means you are really voting for the people around her, and her ability to make appointments. I've never been impressed with either.nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 07:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't doubt their both brain damaged, only Trump doesn't try to hide it. Jokes aside, hear me out. This is why it looks like stage 3 Parkinson's: in stage 3 victims can develope a swallowing disorder. Food & liquid can go down the wind pipe & get trapped in the lung. This is aspirational pneumonia. This causes the coughing fits. Look at the videos, when she coughs and somebody hands her water, she only pretends to sip. Drinking liquids causes of the fits. That's why she's dehydrated. Her staff evidently doesn't know the extent of her condition cause its been widely reported. POLITICO "She won’t drink water, and you try telling Hillary Clinton she has to drink water,” nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 05:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Cruz[edit]
It's the right choice for Cruz, especislly if Trump wins. If Hillary wins, he gains nothing. And if Trump wins w/o his backing, he's really fucked cause Trump will carry Texas. The people who voted him also voted for Trump. He'd have to mend fences sooner or later. He has nothing to lose and everything to gain. I suspect more GOP officr holders will come around, cause nobody's talking down-ballot bullshit anymore. That in itself, the the anti-Trump people should look at. There's been a change in attitudes from 2 months ago, but the Trump haters are still spewing the same anti-Trump bullshit which only fuels the insurgency.nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 07:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
What's Aleppo?[edit]
Oh. Oh. I know that. Jeopardy Category: Sentences that ruined third party presidential candidacies for twenty-seven Dollars. He's done, isn't he? Or would that thing get any better by Trump not knowing what Damascus is? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- I know you are joking but the only reason those pundits on MSNBC care about Aleppo is because they want to bomb it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- You may be right about Scarborough (did I spell him correctly?) But I don't think such an accusation would be fair when leveled against Rachel Maddow. She has proven more than once that she cares about seemingly minor stories half way around the globe as well as in state or local politics, if it affects real people. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
It's what you get when you cross a leopard with a hippo, of course. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- No no he's not done at all. He's broken out of being the 'pot candidate' cause now he was asked a serious foreign policy question. He gave the answers most Americans would give. Now he gets a second chance, and most Americans see this is only way he csn get publicity. It is a welcome relief from listening to the othet two candidates, worse yet, listening to people talk about the other two candidates. nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 05:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- "Something something pot bad something something right-wing libertarianism good" —Rob Smith PB (talk) 04:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Cenk Uygur agrees with me. And you got it from me first. nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 01:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- "Something something pot bad something something right-wing libertarianism good" —Rob Smith PB (talk) 04:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- No no he's not done at all. He's broken out of being the 'pot candidate' cause now he was asked a serious foreign policy question. He gave the answers most Americans would give. Now he gets a second chance, and most Americans see this is only way he csn get publicity. It is a welcome relief from listening to the othet two candidates, worse yet, listening to people talk about the other two candidates. nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 05:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Ahhem...see, it only brings him needed publicity and works to his advantage. Not only do Americans appreciate his candor, they identify with him.nobs 03:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Hillary's pneumonia[edit]
So Clinton's doctor says she has pneumonia (Autoplay video) and that video of her fainting concerns me. How serious is it that she may die because I know elderly pneumonia is quite dangerous? If you think I am overreacting, keep in mind that we have seen Trump defeat 16 Republican nominees w/o outside money, seen Scalia kick the bucket and have Tomas rumored to retire, seen a 74-year-old self-described socialist Jew from Vermont challenge the biggest name in the Democratic party, and we might have a third party candidate participating on the debates.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, you're overreacting, but so are many others. Elderly pneumonia can be dangerous, but definitely not always. Given her campaign schedule, it is hardly surprising that she's caught something- you probably would, too. And yes, this will be the story that occupies the top of this week's news cycle- until Trump says something stupid and/or hateful again, and we go back to the old cycle. Jagulard (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well I realize I am overreacting but it is hard not to compare to how many wild cards this election has had. I am also not surprised that she caught an illness but elderly pneumonia is fairly serious. Also, this asshole is back in the media so the loop continues.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- No, elderly pneumonia is not "fairly serious"- certain forms of pneumonia can be serious in elderly patients, but there are no signs that this is one of those cases. There are about 30 types of pneumonia: do you know which one she has? Please be more responsible than RobS or the media, and withhold judgment until you know what she has. Also, may I respectfully suggest that you live through several more elections before claiming that one has a lot of "wild cards"? There haven't been any, so far. Jagulard (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well I realize I am overreacting but it is hard not to compare to how many wild cards this election has had. I am also not surprised that she caught an illness but elderly pneumonia is fairly serious. Also, this asshole is back in the media so the loop continues.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Dispassionately, here's a likely scenario. Mind you, it must happen quickly because of ballot access laws in the various states. I mean like probably 7-14 days max. The DNC meets, probably secretly, votes to demand the candidate submit to an independent physical exam by a small team of specialists. They make an assessment. This could probably be done in 7 dsys starting today. If she refuses, or the assessment comes back negstive, a simple majority of the DNC can replace her. Kaine is the automstic successor. Then a search for a VP replacement. Biden's out, he cannot constittutionally be elected three times. Sanders is the obvious choice. He may not wish to serve, but because of the imperative he may be pursuaded to run and quit later. If not, they're is no time for an unknown. They will need an old party workhorse, a proven vote-getter in a general election. Kerry, Gore, or Lieberman. Edwards is out, he has a recent felony conviction. nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 04:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Update. This scenario appears to be happening. One caveat: independent specialists need to examine the patient, not Dr. Bardack's records. If more Bardack bullshit is released this week by the campaign as the NYT reports, the DNC has failed to do its job. DNC needs to go on record regarding the candidate, as the RNC has regarding Trump. nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 15:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- The only thing likely about this scenario is the chance that it will appear on a wingnut site or in bad Tom Clancy-esque fiction; probably both. Jagulard (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Live on in denial. All this was foreseesble weeks and months ago. She cannot endure stress. What happens when she has a medical emergency in the middle of a debate? You saw Trump destroy Jeb. Don't underestimste Trump's ability to get under her skin at the precise moment. Better have the EMT's on standby,nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 04:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Jagulard Really, you wouldn't call Trump becoming the nominee or Scalia's death a "wild card"? Also, you don't have to compare me to RobS just because I am unaware that not all forms of pneumonia are potentially dangerous to the elderly.
- @RobS The constitution doesn't have any limits against someone becoming a VP for a third time so Biden could easily become the VP again.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Neither of those things are "wild cards," i.e. events or unknown factors that could dramatically affect the results of the election. While we've certainly seen some shocking developments, the election has been proceeding very much like every other election in the last 20+ years. This isn't the first time a "twist" has come along that heightens the drama of the narrative, and certainly it won't be the last. Jagulard (talk) 05:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well, disregarding Trump, since that was a poor example anyways, I feel like Scalia's death has influenced the election results. The same can be said about terrorist attacks like San Bernadino and Paris since they influenced the electorate's view of immigration, refugees, and Muslims.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Neither of those things are "wild cards," i.e. events or unknown factors that could dramatically affect the results of the election. While we've certainly seen some shocking developments, the election has been proceeding very much like every other election in the last 20+ years. This isn't the first time a "twist" has come along that heightens the drama of the narrative, and certainly it won't be the last. Jagulard (talk) 05:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Live on in denial. All this was foreseesble weeks and months ago. She cannot endure stress. What happens when she has a medical emergency in the middle of a debate? You saw Trump destroy Jeb. Don't underestimste Trump's ability to get under her skin at the precise moment. Better have the EMT's on standby,nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 04:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Dispassionately, here's a likely scenario. Mind you, it must happen quickly because of ballot access laws in the various states. I mean like probably 7-14 days max. The DNC meets, probably secretly, votes to demand the candidate submit to an independent physical exam by a small team of specialists. They make an assessment. This could probably be done in 7 dsys starting today. If she refuses, or the assessment comes back negstive, a simple majority of the DNC can replace her. Kaine is the automstic successor. Then a search for a VP replacement. Biden's out, he cannot constittutionally be elected three times. Sanders is the obvious choice. He may not wish to serve, but because of the imperative he may be pursuaded to run and quit later. If not, they're is no time for an unknown. They will need an old party workhorse, a proven vote-getter in a general election. Kerry, Gore, or Lieberman. Edwards is out, he has a recent felony conviction. nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 04:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- hmmm, I think you are correct on that. So both Bill Clinton and Barack Obams may be eligible too run as well, but limited in the time they may serve should they ascend to the presidency. nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 05:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- oh, and that wasn't Hillary anyway, it was a body double about 20 years younger, 20 lbs lighter, shorter, with lighter hair and a different hairstyle. And that van they tossed her into head first, is an armoured ambulance. And Chelsea doesn't live there, it's a secret medical facility. And America's Most Trusted Physician, according to CNN, Dr. Drew Pinsky, is the guy who criticized the health care Hillary was recieving from Dr. Lisa Bardack, the same one feeding us the line of bullshit about pnuemonia now. Why in the fuck does she need her personal physician in attendance at her side at 8:00 AM on a Sundsy morning (to give her a nuerological exam for a respiratory condition) in addition to the round-the-clock guy from the Secret Service detail. Wake up. Trust me, the DNC is not that fucking gullible or naive to believe Bardack's bullshit. The DNC isn't wedded to Clinton's bullshit anymore than the RNC is wedded to Trump s bullshit.nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 06:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- sooooo....she goes to a home with a newborn infant, gets diagnosed with a respiratory infection, and leaves out onto the street to hug a little girl. If any of that is true, she may be in trouble with voters who are mothers of small children.nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 07:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- And Hillary has got tongue cancer, wears a colostomy bag, has Parkinson's, and is going to die in three years max of vascular dementia. Yeah, I've read it all over at Free Republic. Anything else, or did I miss one? --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- In fact yes. The colostomy bag is not disinformation put out by the Kremlin and the Russian SVR because they fear Hillary will implement a missile defense system causing a costly arms race ala Reagan v. Gorby which Putin can't afford and will bankrupt the Russisn Federation all over again. The Trump coddling Putin lie is another myth concocted by the MSM/HRC/DNC bunch. Barack Obama already is coddling Putin with the Syrian ceasefire which coddles Assad and is the next step after kissing upto the Aystollah and Iran. This means abandoning our CIA allies, ISIS. So no, the colostomy is not Kremlin disinformtion. It's either anti-neocon disinformation from American defense experts, or its real. I think maybe there's less thsn a 10% chance that Hillary does not have a colostomy.nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 05:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- After years on this site I have no idea if you're joking or not. I like to think that you're joking, but I've seen enough people that actually believe this stuff. Fucking Poe. AyzmoCheers 14:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Here's the proof of the pudding.nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 23:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- "According to InfoWars..." Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- You're right. There's no evidence the object was metalic. Maybe it was plastic. Maybe it was just a turd....nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 00:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Our CIA allies, the DAESH?! Holy flying fuck, are you on the drugs you're decrying or did you start smoking crack?! Or is this some kinda dumb joke a la Joseph Joestar ("I was only pretending to be retarded, lolz!")--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 16:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC) 16:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Update: Obama tried to coddle Putin, but Putin's having none of it with the broken Syrian ceasefire. This is the only explaination for Hillary & Obama's trashing Putin, everytime they try to plant a big, wet, sloppy kiss on his lips, he rejects their advances. He's too miffed about missile defense becsuse, ultimately, it makes the Russian Federation a vassal state of the US.nobs 04:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Our CIA allies, the DAESH?! Holy flying fuck, are you on the drugs you're decrying or did you start smoking crack?! Or is this some kinda dumb joke a la Joseph Joestar ("I was only pretending to be retarded, lolz!")--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 16:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC) 16:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- You're right. There's no evidence the object was metalic. Maybe it was plastic. Maybe it was just a turd....nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 00:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- "According to InfoWars..." Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Here's the proof of the pudding.nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 23:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- After years on this site I have no idea if you're joking or not. I like to think that you're joking, but I've seen enough people that actually believe this stuff. Fucking Poe. AyzmoCheers 14:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- In fact yes. The colostomy bag is not disinformation put out by the Kremlin and the Russian SVR because they fear Hillary will implement a missile defense system causing a costly arms race ala Reagan v. Gorby which Putin can't afford and will bankrupt the Russisn Federation all over again. The Trump coddling Putin lie is another myth concocted by the MSM/HRC/DNC bunch. Barack Obama already is coddling Putin with the Syrian ceasefire which coddles Assad and is the next step after kissing upto the Aystollah and Iran. This means abandoning our CIA allies, ISIS. So no, the colostomy is not Kremlin disinformtion. It's either anti-neocon disinformation from American defense experts, or its real. I think maybe there's less thsn a 10% chance that Hillary does not have a colostomy.nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 05:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Probably not WIGO-worthy but it made me smile[edit]
Mike Huckabee tries comparing Trump and Clinton to Quint and the shark in Jaws. With hilarious consequences. Bicyclewheel
10:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Four way electoral split[edit]
So Fivethirtyeight thinks McMullin has a shot of winning Utah. "Favorite son" Bernard Sanders might have a shot at winning Vermont via write-in. So what if by some voodo-magic both happens and as a result neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump get to 270 electoral votes, the election would go to the House (with McMullin, Hillary and Trump eligible to be voted on) and the Senate (with Kaine and Pence eligible to get voted on). The House would have to vote by state delegation with the one guy from Wyoming having the same weight as the entire delegation of California (no there is no mechanism to break any ties, at least none described in the constitution. And many congressional delegation consist of even numbers). What would be the consequences of such an election and who would be the most likely outcome as President and VP? another +++Swedish+++ conspiracy by +++Laurogeita Hamabost+++ 19:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- McMullin definitely has a (remote) chance of winning Utah, but I wouldn't put money on any write-in candidate winning a state. Vulpius (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't Mindy Finn be one of the candidates getting voted on by the Senate? L's Ideology (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- And who is Mindy Finn? Also, because the constitution is explicit on the Senate only getting to chose the VP between the top two electoral vote getters while the President can be chosen between the top three. Don't ask me why. It was the clique of demigods who agreed on everything who put in the twelfth amendment to fix their already pretty borked up electoral system to chose the President. Seriously, under the pre twelfth-amendment system every elector would get two votes and the person with the second most votes would be VP. That produced a VP and President from different parties in literally the first election with more than one candidate (George Washington ran unopposed). another +++Swedish+++ conspiracy by +++Laurogeita Hamabost+++ 23:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
The violent privilege of voting Hillary[edit]
Just curious before I start reading this... Why the negativity towards it? Evolution and Metamorphosis (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- From what I can tell through a quick skim, it just seems to be a blog post that criticizes Hillary for her hawkishness and tendency to go to war. It basically covers nothing new, stuff we already should know, etc. --GVOLTT (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- My inclination would be that it's silly because "Oh my god look at the fucking alternatives, Jill Stein is the closest thing we have to sanity in this race, and that's scraping the bottom of the 3rd party barrel, what the fuck do you circular firing squads want?" ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Somebody removed the entry...
- But isn't that pretty much Hillary's campaign? The Democrats' slogan right now seems to be "Let not power go to Trump, but to us"? Evolution and Metamorphosis (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- this is pretty much the campaign now ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Damn. I shouldn't have clicked on that link while in class, it was painful keep in my laugh. Anyways, I liked the points about her hawkishness but I think Kunzler, the author, more often than not advertised the Green party.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- To be quite honest, "dovishness" (or rather isolationism) on the part of the US has not done us any favors in the two world wars. I am not the Ombud's man 21:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- For what reason did the US have to get involved in WWI? And WWII wouldn't have happened had the Allies not screwed over Germany. I dnot' know why you have this bizarre view of the US being some benvolent state.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- How about the reasons they did? (not to mention German war crimes) Also, saying WW II was because Germany was "screwed over" is about the same level as saying Muslim's are justified in doing 9/11 because of something "we" did... I am not the Ombud's man 22:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Neither of those cases had anything to do with the US's "isolationism", though. To your second point, yeah blowback is a problem but your oversimplification is stupid. The Allies tried to intervene in the Russian revolution creating a rift between the two; the US cut off Japan's oil and had war games in their territory; the League was fundamentally broken and couldn't stop Italy in Ethiopia, Japan in China, or the remilitarization of Germany; the Brits gave Germany part of Czechoslovakia; various businesses helped build up Germany despite the racism building within. To compare these events "Muslims" who attacked the Twin Towers is an oversimplication, at best. Regardless, the article being discussed has nothing to do with WWII.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for making the case for hawkishness in the leadup to World War II for me. Had the US intervened in China on behalf of the downtrodden Chinese or had Britain and France not sold out Czechoslovakia, a lot of suffering could have been prevented. Quite frankly, I prefer the occasional "unjust war" against a despot over a despot with nuclear arms and a chip on his shoulder out to conquer the world. I trust Hillary Clinton with the ability to stand up to the despots of the war without it coming to nuclear war. I do not trust either Trump or Johnson with that. Trump would probably nuke someone and Johnson would be so flabbergasted by the next Rwanda he would do even less to stop it than Bill Clinton did way back when. I am not the Ombud's man 23:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well you have undeniably been a neocon throughout your various socks, whether it be whitewashing Israel's crimes to believing the firebombing Dresden was a moral decision. You don;t understand how unstable the world would become if we knocked off every "despot" nor do you understand that these "despots" are supported by their people for instuting reforms; there are no world-conquering despots unless you want to count the US since it is the world's only empire. My examples don't prove hawkishness, they prove that the Allies had no problem with fascism; Truman, himself, wanted to arm the Nazis against the Soviets and only armed the Soviets after they began winning. If the Allies gave a damn about the Jews or Romani, a peoples are always overlooked when talking about the Holocaust, then they would've taken them in. Clinton may start WWIII and you are a moron for supporting that.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, also, as the uninformed neocon that you are, Bill Clinton didn't ignore Rwanda's genocide, he actively blocked international action against it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for making the case for hawkishness in the leadup to World War II for me. Had the US intervened in China on behalf of the downtrodden Chinese or had Britain and France not sold out Czechoslovakia, a lot of suffering could have been prevented. Quite frankly, I prefer the occasional "unjust war" against a despot over a despot with nuclear arms and a chip on his shoulder out to conquer the world. I trust Hillary Clinton with the ability to stand up to the despots of the war without it coming to nuclear war. I do not trust either Trump or Johnson with that. Trump would probably nuke someone and Johnson would be so flabbergasted by the next Rwanda he would do even less to stop it than Bill Clinton did way back when. I am not the Ombud's man 23:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Neither of those cases had anything to do with the US's "isolationism", though. To your second point, yeah blowback is a problem but your oversimplification is stupid. The Allies tried to intervene in the Russian revolution creating a rift between the two; the US cut off Japan's oil and had war games in their territory; the League was fundamentally broken and couldn't stop Italy in Ethiopia, Japan in China, or the remilitarization of Germany; the Brits gave Germany part of Czechoslovakia; various businesses helped build up Germany despite the racism building within. To compare these events "Muslims" who attacked the Twin Towers is an oversimplication, at best. Regardless, the article being discussed has nothing to do with WWII.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- How about the reasons
- For what reason did the US have to get involved in WWI? And WWII wouldn't have happened had the Allies not screwed over Germany. I dnot' know why you have this bizarre view of the US being some benvolent state.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- To be quite honest, "dovishness" (or rather isolationism) on the part of the US has not done us any favors in the two world wars. I am not the Ombud's man 21:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Damn. I shouldn't have clicked on that link while in class, it was painful keep in my laugh. Anyways, I liked the points about her hawkishness but I think Kunzler, the author, more often than not advertised the Green party.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- this is pretty much the campaign now ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I am not a conservative of any sort. And your romantic infatuation with despots is cute but wrong. The only thing that keeps the Kims or the Ayatollahs from making true on their threats is that their enemies currently have a military advantage. Truman - as you might know - was not even VP until January of 1945 and by that point he could not have armed the Nazis if he wanted to. Truman did also endorse the creation of the state of Israel, explicitly justifying it with the Shoah. The Allies made the same mistake you want to make right now: Thinking you should negotiate with people who talk about their intention to commit genocide. The only way to deal with people who threaten genocide is stopping the. Whether through sanctions, through force of arms or through whatever it takes. Yes, not letting in any Jewish refugees was a huge mistake (a mistake that Trump wants to repeat with the Syrian refugees today) and it will forever remain a stain on the honor of the human race. But do you know who liberated the concentration camps? It was the Soviets, the Americans and the British. Or to be more precise, the US army, the British army and the Red army. Not the Soviet-American pacifists union. War may be evil, but sometimes it is a necessary evil. Do tell me what you would do if for instance Iran were to invade a small country in the Gulf or were to shoot rockets towards Tel Aviv. Would you talk with them which part of the Sudeten they want to annex? I am not the Ombud's man 00:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- As I explained to your old account, neocons aren't necessarily socially conservative. I have no infatuation with despots unlike most of the permenant members of the UNSC who praises them and arms them. Only an idiot thinks that NK has any true power w/o China or that Iran actually wants to destabilise the Middle East; our regime and destablisation policies are purposefully meant to hinder and threaten them. The French were ready to attack Germany but the Brits didn't want to because they didn't see the strategic value; had Germany invaded Czechoslavakia, Poland, the UK, France, and the Soviets would've been forced to intervene due to being allies with them and Germany would have quickly lost. Also, the creation of Israel was explicitly anti-Semitic and anti-Arab; The Europeans got to remove the Jews they so hated and replce the Arabs the looked down on, just read Churchill's words about Jews and Arabs.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well that is something I have not heard before. Where did you get that idea? I for one don't think there is any "conservative" or "liberal" foreign policy, so if the term "neoconservative" is supposed to refer exclusively to foreign policy it is clearly a misnomer. And I am not gung-ho on war. But I do think we should starve the Saudi beast (by consuming less oil) and isolate Iran on the world stage. At the very least stop shipping cranes to Tehran. I am not the Ombud's man 02:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
the creation of Israel was explicitly anti-Semitic
—Owlman- I have always seen the creation of Israel to be similar to the abolotionists who thought who should ship all of the slaves to Africa because "that is where they came from", such a view is racist. You obviously don't know much about international relations since "liberal" on of the main schools of thought while neocons have existed since, at least, the '70s. I am fine with starving the Saudis because I want an end to all foreign military aid. Your view to isolate Iran will force them to act like NK and become a volatile puppet in an already unstable region of the world.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Back to Owlman's original point about screwing over Germany: Not that it justifies any part of WW2 (how do you justify world wars anyway...), but if the Treaty of Versailles (which you could say was a justified way to handle things but you could also say was not a good way to handle things) did not put so much economic pressure/debt and war guilt on Germany and the world-wide economic crisis (which was no nation's fault, though it originated in the US) didn't happen, then Hitler with his jew-blaming and country-blaming rhetoric would not have gained the support he needed to scheme/eliminate his political opponents and exploit fatal loopholes in the then-Weimar democratic system to destroy any semblance of democracy. 109.175.208.0 (talk) 04:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ahh, we're getting closer and closer to explaining the current resurgence of far-right politics in the Western world. Evolution and Metamorphosis (talk) 06:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- When Hitler finally did rise to power, the Versailles treaty was all but dead and buried. Germany had been admitted to the league of nations, reparation payments were cancelled by the Allies (not that they ever amounted to more than single digit percents of the GDP anyway, very much unlike the 1871 reparations imposed on France which were twice the GDP payable immediately in gold). Versailles is an excuse. What really did make many people vote for Hitler was the fact that they were anti-Semites. Just as there were antisemitic parties during the "second empire" (1871-1918) and they gained nontrivial amounts of votes and seats in parliament in "good times". Hitler was of course also supported by old style conservatives surrounding the idiot Hindenburg and austerity measures put in place by Brüning did little to alleviate the economic crisis (there is a lesson in there somewhere) although they did succeed in first reducing and then getting rid of reparations. The fundamental fact that every analysis of the Nazi era has to grapple with is that Hitler was popular. Not only among those who voted for him in 1933 but soon also among the old elites (those who grumbled on were either removed or convinced by Hitler's foreign policy success), the former communists (whole regiments of communist para-military units joined the SA almost on day one) and even "ordinary citizens". A huge part of that "popularity" was the fact that Hitler's foreign policy was "working" and nobody who opposed Hitler could be sure of even tacit support by any foreign power. Now imagine what the crushdown (a crushdown is harder than a crackdown) on the 2009 protests in Iran and the "Iran deal" which elevates Iran to a "partner" in negotiations must have done to the real Iranian opposition; you know, those people actually willing and able to replace the Mullahs with a secular(ish) system instead of trying reform within this deeply rotten edifice. We should isolate the Iranian regime and say in so many words: If there is another uprising and the regime so much as harms a single hair on the head of the insurgents, we are ending the Iranian regime. But we had that chance in 2009 and did not take it. It may be decades before we get that chance again. And by that time Iran may well have nukes. another +++Swedish+++ conspiracy by +++Laurogeita Hamabost+++ 14:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- This is where I found this old article from the Intercept interesting (it once appeared in WIGO:Blogs. It asserts that the rise of today's far-right candidates comes from the fact corrupt elites in power have failed the people that unavoidably put them in power. The voters in reaction turn to the worst of the candidates in order to destroy the system of class oppression they have been in for so long. As the author put it:
- When Hitler finally did rise to power, the Versailles treaty was all but dead and buried. Germany had been admitted to the league of nations, reparation payments were cancelled by the Allies (not that they ever amounted to more than single digit percents of the GDP anyway, very much unlike the 1871 reparations imposed on France which were twice the GDP payable immediately in gold). Versailles is an excuse. What really did make many people vote for Hitler was the fact that they were anti-Semites. Just as there were antisemitic parties during the "second empire" (1871-1918) and they gained nontrivial amounts of votes and seats in parliament in "good times". Hitler was of course also supported by old style conservatives surrounding the idiot Hindenburg and austerity measures put in place by Brüning did little to alleviate the economic crisis (there is a lesson in there somewhere) although they did succeed in first reducing and then getting rid of reparations. The fundamental fact that every analysis of the Nazi era has to grapple with is that Hitler was popular. Not only among those who voted for him in 1933 but soon also among the old elites (those who grumbled on were either removed or convinced by Hitler's foreign policy success), the former communists (whole regiments of communist para-military units joined the SA almost on day one) and even "ordinary citizens". A huge part of that "popularity" was the fact that Hitler's foreign policy was "working" and nobody who opposed Hitler could be sure of even tacit support by any foreign power. Now imagine what the crushdown (a crushdown is harder than a crackdown) on the 2009 protests in Iran and the "Iran deal" which elevates Iran to a "partner" in negotiations must have done to the real Iranian opposition; you know, those people actually willing and able to replace the Mullahs with a secular(ish) system instead of trying reform within this deeply rotten edifice. We should isolate the Iranian regime and say in so many words: If there is another uprising and the regime so much as harms a single hair on the head of the insurgents, we are ending the Iranian regime. But we had that chance in 2009 and did not take it. It may be decades before we get that chance again. And by that time Iran may well have nukes. another +++Swedish+++ conspiracy by +++Laurogeita Hamabost+++ 14:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ahh, we're getting closer and closer to explaining the current resurgence of far-right politics in the Western world. Evolution and Metamorphosis (talk) 06:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Back to Owlman's original point about screwing over Germany: Not that it justifies any part of WW2 (how do you justify world wars anyway...), but if the Treaty of Versailles (which you could say was a justified way to handle things but you could also say was not a good way to handle things) did not put so much economic pressure/debt and war guilt on Germany and the world-wide economic crisis (which was no nation's fault, though it originated in the US) didn't happen, then Hitler with his jew-blaming and country-blaming rhetoric would not have gained the support he needed to scheme/eliminate his political opponents and exploit fatal loopholes in the then-Weimar democratic system to destroy any semblance of democracy. 109.175.208.0 (talk) 04:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- I have always seen the creation of Israel to be similar to the abolotionists who thought who should ship all of the slaves to Africa because "that is where they came from", such a view is racist. You obviously don't know much about international relations since "liberal" on of the main schools of thought while neocons have existed since, at least, the '70s. I am fine with starving the Saudis because I want an end to all foreign military aid. Your view to isolate Iran will force them to act like NK and become a volatile puppet in an already unstable region of the world.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
“”economic suffering and xenophobia/racism are not mutually exclusive. The opposite is true: The former fuels the latter, as sustained economic misery makes people more receptive to tribalistic scapegoating.
|
- Instantly I remembered Hitler and how he took advantage of the historical European antisemitism in order to put himself in power in order to take his revenge in the form of WWII. So no, it wasn't necessarily that his economic plan that was working, but that the people were tired of the Weimar Republic that has for long failed the Germans. —Oh colors! (speak, speak) Look at what I've done 17:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I wouldn't say the Weimar Republic failed the Germans, since the economic crisis was hardly their fault. They would have done a lot better at keeping the anti-semitism/anti-Versailles rhetoric/other extremism on the sidelines if that hadn't happened. 109.175.208.0 (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Instantly I remembered Hitler and how he took advantage of the historical European antisemitism in order to put himself in power in order to take his revenge in the form of WWII. So no, it wasn't necessarily that his economic plan that was working, but that the people were tired of the Weimar Republic that has for long failed the Germans. —Oh colors! (speak, speak) Look at what I've done 17:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Could Owlman stop dredging up articles from over a year ago to smear Clinton[edit]
This is about the current elections, all the articles say essentially the same thing, and evidently people are getting a little tired of it judging by the abysmal scores they get. We need rules on what constitutes a proper "elections" article. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Isn't it a good thing that the Democrats stepped in to repair a fire-bombed Republican building?[edit]
I mean, com'on, thats the kind of grace and good will this system needs and that should be encouraged for everybody.— Unsigned, by: 173.56.77.91 / talk / contribs
- You mean the party that endorsed this kind of shit just 4 years ago? No, they shouldn't. They are one of the two biggest parties in the US with billions of dollars coming from political donor and with campaigns all across the US.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- I care less about the recipients here. What I see is the Democrats chosing to help a target struck by the inherent unfairness of a firebombing by the enemy of all — white supremacist assholes (IIRC). I support whatever undoes the fevered actions of firebombing hate groups. Good on them. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 07:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Uh, percy, buddy, you're misreading the graffiti. It wasn't promoting white supremacist ideology, it was accusing the republicans of being the white supremacists. The most reasonable profile for a suspect here is an antifa from neighboring University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. I'll be delighted if it turns out the republicans were bombed by a white supremacist, because hell yeah, confirming my biases, but for the moment I suspect a (full-on) leftist college student. Hillsborough isn't exactly a KKK stronghold town. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- The argument I'm making is not that the Republicans are nice (nor anything regarding their character). My argument points out — though does not hinge on — the fact that anyone perpetrating a firebombing over a difference of opinion is an asshole. My argument is actually somewhat separate from the specifics of the event. What I'm saying is something akin to; "I may not agree with your words, but I would defend to the death your right to say them". And also, that it's important that we not dehumanize the opposition. Sure, their ideas are shit and deserve to be torn to shreds — unlike their physical existences. And finally, an act of charity between competitors is hard to misconstrue into being anything but an act of charity. I mean, who would seriously go "D'aaaw, an act of stupid charity had to come and ruin the awesome firebombing"? There are many ways by which sane people ought to take the fight to the Republicans. Firebombings isn't one of them. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I know, I'm not morally condemning anyone who donated. Seems like a fine way to stand up for one's principles(even if they don't exactly match my principles). I was just saying you misread an important fact. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough, old friend.
Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- The reason I am condemning them isn't because I believe the GOP should be firebombed but because the Democrats have given money to a hatefilled party that already has the money to repair the office. We aren't looking at some poor, racist old man who had his burned down we are looking at a temporary political office getting burned with no one being injured. The while "I will defend your right to say hate speech" is nice, RBP, but no one is being persecuted by the government and you, yourself do not need to provide them with money.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, but there's a lot of nuance to it all. This wasn't the state republican headquarters, who are the assholes who passed HB2, did everything in their power to ban abortion without technically violating the interpretation set down in Roe v. Wade, did more to undermine democracy in this state than anyone ever. This was a local town republican party, they mostly concern themselves with getting out the vote to the base, and contesting local elections, which don't deal with the same hateful issues. Sure, they had a giant pile of Trump/Pence signs and a pile of McCrory signs to give to locals, but still, everyone here should know the inherent flaws of the hasty generalization fallacy. Neither representative to the state house, nor the senator from the Hillsborough area voted for HB2(they were both democrats, which helps) ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Again, all I take away from it is that the Democrats decided to show their true character (as opposed to that of the Republicans) by going above and beyond. That's all. The firebombing of the Republicans was a bad thing happening to bad people. The Democrats donating money was good people doing a good deed. Not much else to see here, imo. Also, let me be clear on the fact that the Democrats would have done nothing wrong by just letting the Republicans pay for the damages themselves (which they can afford), as would be expected. But the Democrats did something unexpected. They showed remarkable compassion, even for their enemy. And whatever that is, it's not a blemish on the Democrats. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- "Bad people" - No. People with bad, ill-formed opinions, yes, but not "bad people". Being on the sidelines and gloating as this kind of thing happens and then lambasting people when they do the thing decent people do in a reasonable country does make you a bad person, though. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Ikanreed As I have said, I don't condone the firebombing but there is no reason to give them money who change they will, at least, use to advertise more pf their hate speech and since they are one of the biggest parties, they have a ton of platforms to speak from. Had this been some third party like say the Constitution Party which has virtually no power of platforms, then maybe it would be more justifiable. It is possible that those work there don't share the same views with the rest of the party but they weren't targeted, the office was.
- @RBP That is nice and all but that money is going to go towards furthering people who want to deport people en masse, detain and spy on Muslims, restrict abortion, and demonize and suppress Black people. You are aiding their BS by giving them money.Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- This has been the best, most inspiring news of this election year. And the fact it was done locally, not the DNC, restores one's faith in humanity. Other's are thinking along this same line.nobs 22:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Again, all I take away from it is that the Democrats decided to show their true character (as opposed to that of the Republicans) by going above and beyond. That's all. The firebombing of the Republicans was a bad thing happening to bad people. The Democrats donating money was good people doing a good deed. Not much else to see here, imo. Also, let me be clear on the fact that the Democrats would have done nothing wrong by just letting the Republicans pay for the damages themselves (which they can afford), as would be expected. But the Democrats did something unexpected. They showed remarkable compassion, even for their enemy. And whatever that is, it's not a blemish on the Democrats. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, but there's a lot of nuance to it all. This wasn't the state republican headquarters, who are the assholes who passed HB2, did everything in their power to ban abortion without technically violating the interpretation set down in Roe v. Wade, did more to undermine democracy in this state than anyone ever. This was a local town republican party, they mostly concern themselves with getting out the vote to the base, and contesting local elections, which don't deal with the same hateful issues. Sure, they had a giant pile of Trump/Pence signs and a pile of McCrory signs to give to locals, but still, everyone here should know the inherent flaws of the hasty generalization fallacy. Neither representative to the state house, nor the senator from the Hillsborough area voted for HB2(they were both democrats, which helps) ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- The reason I am condemning them isn't because I believe the GOP should be firebombed but because the Democrats have given money to a hatefilled party that already has the money to repair the office. We aren't looking at some poor, racist old man who had his burned down we are looking at a temporary political office getting burned with no one being injured. The while "I will defend your right to say hate speech" is nice, RBP, but no one is being persecuted by the government and you, yourself do not need to provide them with money.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough, old friend.
- Yes, I know, I'm not morally condemning anyone who donated. Seems like a fine way to stand up for one's principles(even if they don't exactly match my principles). I was just saying you misread an important fact. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- The argument I'm making is not that the Republicans are nice (nor anything regarding their character). My argument points out — though does not hinge on — the fact that anyone perpetrating a firebombing over a difference of opinion is an asshole. My argument is actually somewhat separate from the specifics of the event. What I'm saying is something akin to; "I may not agree with your words, but I would defend to the death your right to say them". And also, that it's important that we not dehumanize the opposition. Sure, their ideas are shit and deserve to be torn to shreds — unlike their physical existences. And finally, an act of charity between competitors is hard to misconstrue into being anything but an act of charity. I mean, who would seriously go "D'aaaw, an act of stupid charity had to come and ruin the awesome firebombing"? There are many ways by which sane people ought to take the fight to the Republicans. Firebombings isn't one of them. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Uh, percy, buddy, you're misreading the graffiti. It wasn't promoting white supremacist ideology, it was accusing the republicans of being the white supremacists. The most reasonable profile for a suspect here is an antifa from neighboring University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. I'll be delighted if it turns out the republicans were bombed by a white supremacist, because hell yeah, confirming my biases, but for the moment I suspect a (full-on) leftist college student. Hillsborough isn't exactly a KKK stronghold town. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- I care less about the recipients here. What I see is the Democrats chosing to help a target struck by the inherent unfairness of a firebombing by the enemy of all — white supremacist assholes (IIRC). I support whatever undoes the fevered actions of firebombing hate groups. Good on them. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 07:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Congressional term limits a good thing?[edit]
How? Worzelpete (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- That's a good question, I suppose. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- I have always been hesitant about term limits. As the link above explains, it would cut down on expertise and help lobbyists; I also think that it would make the House more partisan since you only have two years before re-election limiting the time you have to pass legislation. I could support term limits on the Senate for, say, 3 terms (18 years) But this likely wouldn passed w/o a state convention.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well, there's a number of people who belief, quite firmly, that the retention rates for representatives is too high, creating a disconnect between them and their voters. Under this thesis, everyone views congress as bad but thinks their representative does a pretty good job, and it inhibits change and progress. I think that's utter bullshit and FPTP is the main cause of these kinds of problems. But, whatever. Electoral reform isn't going to happen either way. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's not even just that. It is amazing how embedded special interests are in national politics and it is only getting worse in states. I can't believe how many Representatives have no opposing candidates.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- My argument:we need much, much, much smaller districts, so that anyone can feel like they could swing an election just by talking to as many people as possible, and thus anyone could run. 1 Representative per 100,000 citizens, paid a living wage, voting electronically, with bonuses for sitting on committees. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- I have always viewed the idea of federalism and state's rights very positively as long as individual rights are protected. No more unfunded mandates or depriving funding, like road construction, because you want a state to do something.
- We should also have a single-subject per bill and no bills written by unelected "experts".
- We should also broaden the right to vote to include felons, 16 & older, and immigrants who have permanent residency here.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think the problem with old people in Congress is mostly a senate problem. Six years is too long a term. Maybe we should get rid of the Senate entirely? It serves no conceivable purpose today. Instead we could have the House as the body that represents regions and something else to represent the people's will at large. Worzelpete (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Been weighing pros-cons on this a long long long time. 18 years in either or both Houses combined is sufficient. If a legislators hasn't accomplished what they were sent to do by then, put em out to pasture.nobs 22:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- My argument:we need much, much, much smaller districts, so that anyone can feel like they could swing an election just by talking to as many people as possible, and thus anyone could run. 1 Representative per 100,000 citizens, paid a living wage, voting electronically, with bonuses for sitting on committees. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's not even just that. It is amazing how embedded special interests are in national politics and it is only getting worse in states. I can't believe how many Representatives have no opposing candidates.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well, there's a number of people who belief, quite firmly, that the retention rates for representatives is too high, creating a disconnect between them and their voters. Under this thesis, everyone views congress as bad but thinks their representative does a pretty good job, and it inhibits change and progress. I think that's utter bullshit and FPTP is the main cause of these kinds of problems. But, whatever. Electoral reform isn't going to happen either way. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- I have always been hesitant about term limits. As the link above explains, it would cut down on expertise and help lobbyists; I also think that it would make the House more partisan since you only have two years before re-election limiting the time you have to pass legislation. I could support term limits on the Senate for, say, 3 terms (18 years) But this likely wouldn passed w/o a state convention.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
How long?[edit]
How long after the election do you guys think it will be before some pundit utters the word "mandate" about one of the most loathed presidential races in the history of the United States? I give it a whole two weeks, because I'm feeling generous towards our media today. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- You're talking Hillary, I presume. A week ago when she was up 12 pts they already were. If Trump wins, I look forward to NPR the next day explaining how it didn' t really happen. No matter what, there will probably be lottsa election challenges in the courts in several states, even if it's not for the presidency.nobs 23:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Well, congrats on assuming my assumptions. I was well aware that both candidates sucked when I proclaimed my concern. Owlman has nicely directed me to a flaming garbage pail containing exactly the statements I was expecting. The most unpopular president-elect in history, well over a million behind in the popular vote, and there it is, a festering turd, just waiting to be stepped in. "Mandate". Fuck US politics so much. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 02:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- Don't forget that it appears nearly half the eligible voters in this country didn't even vote for anyone and that even less people voted for Trump than voted for Romney, McCain, or Dubya; nearly 90,000 MI voters left the Prez box blank so Trump only won a little over 11,000.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- Jeez even NPR doesn't sound as bad as you guys. The Trump you think you know, based on the the lies and distortions the mainstream spread which is fully documented, is not the real Trump. Chalk it up to a novice witnout electoral experience. But he's very much like Hillary, he holds two positions, his real views in private and the hate and garbage - just like Hillary - he and she feed people in public. nobs 19:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, yes, Trump is secretly whatever you want him to be because that's the only filter through which you can possibly find an excuse for supporting him. I get it nobs. That's got nothing to do with how shitty saying a candidate with 40% approval ratings and lost the popular vote has a popular mandate. Except in that may even undermine the notion that he has a mandate since it suggests that people weren't voting for his actual policies.
- I'd have been almost as pissed off about this if Hilary had won, and someone had slapped the word "mandate" on her presidency. Americans do not like our president, and we wouldn't have liked our president if the other one won either. Pretending like we do and they are going into office with the approval of the citizenry to push an agenda is basically a lie. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, Americans do like their President and will until Mid January when (presumably) the fascist coup d'etat takes over and installs a person nobody elected while the sitting President (Obama) and the elected President (Hillary Clinton) have to look on in horror and disgust. Worzelpete (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- Jeez even NPR doesn't sound as bad as you guys. The Trump you think you know, based on the the lies and distortions the mainstream spread which is fully documented, is not the real Trump. Chalk it up to a novice witnout electoral experience. But he's very much like Hillary, he holds two positions, his real views in private and the hate and garbage - just like Hillary - he and she feed people in public. nobs 19:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- Don't forget that it appears nearly half the eligible voters in this country didn't even vote for anyone and that even less people voted for Trump than voted for Romney, McCain, or Dubya; nearly 90,000 MI voters left the Prez box blank so Trump only won a little over 11,000.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- Well, congrats on assuming my assumptions. I was well aware that both candidates sucked when I proclaimed my concern. Owlman has nicely directed me to a flaming garbage pail containing exactly the statements I was expecting. The most unpopular president-elect in history, well over a million behind in the popular vote, and there it is, a festering turd, just waiting to be stepped in. "Mandate". Fuck US politics so much. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 02:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
"Is this a spoof?" Indians call poe's law on Trump's Hindi language appeal to Indian-Americans."[edit]
Donald Trump's latest campaign ad features him reading a well rehearsed soundbitespeaking in Hindi and ripping off Indian PM Modi's campaign slogan. Indians react.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-37787347 not a real jedidamn right i'm paranoid 13:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Yep, republicans are literally anti-democracy.[edit]
Sure, Trump's statement was a joke. But can you imagine any president past or present joking about destroying American democracy? The amount the republicans have done in my state(along with many others) to disenfranchise as many people as possible gives an eerie fucking backdrop to "jokes" like that one. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well there were candidates that wanted to deny the vote to people on account of race or gender. But that was mostly before those people were considered people. Worzelpete (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well, besides Trump encouraging his supporters to intimidate voters at the polls or the increasingly draconian voter ID laws and budget cuts to polling stations, Indiana Indiana has begun to use state police officers to raid voter registration drives. So I will reiterate, don't give these bastards a dollar.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Just how exactly does one engage in "voter intimidation"? We hear that phrase bandied about quite a bit. As to the state police, if they aren't enforcing state laws, what are they supposed to do?procure hookers for the Governor?nobs 23:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- The way we do it down here in the Deep South, anybody brown come to vote, you badger them to show ID and prove they're not illegal. It's easier if you have a few visibly armed Sobchak types with you.
- As for staties, I don't know about where you live, but down here they're mostly for show. Slip 'em a few dollars and they'll fuck off. If it's county or townie cops, it depends on how friendly you are with the local Sheriff. --Castaigne2 (talk) 00:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Everywhere I've lived, it's an inverse pyramid. The big city cops are the best trained and most professional; the county cops are misfits booted-off the big city force, or wannabes' who couldn't make it. And the state cops are the bottom of the barrel who couldn't make it as city cops or county cops.nobs 01:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Just how exactly does one engage in "voter intimidation"? We hear that phrase bandied about quite a bit. As to the state police, if they aren't enforcing state laws, what are they supposed to do?procure hookers for the Governor?nobs 23:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Well, besides Trump encouraging his supporters to intimidate voters at the polls or the increasingly draconian voter ID laws and budget cuts to polling stations, Indiana Indiana has begun to use state police officers to raid voter registration drives. So I will reiterate, don't give these bastards a dollar.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Now they have come for the Jews[edit]
So Cenk Uygur had a good segment on how Trump has normalized anti-Semitism in the US; he uses several clips and screencaps of Trump and his supporters spouting anti-Semitic stereotypes.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Cenk Uygur is a fucking communist.nobs 08:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Uh... [citation needed] 141.134.75.236 (talk) 08:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- We're living in the Age of Clinton. It doesn't have to be true. It should be enough that I said it. nobs 09:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Y'know, RobS, you can be quite the polemicist. I don't why you brought up the Clintons or why Cenk being a supposed communist matters (he's not, btw) about a video about how Trump is helping anti-Semitism grow in the US.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Commie agitprop.nobs 10:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- If I were to associate the maxim "It doesn't have to be true. It should be enough that I said it." with one side in the current Presidential race, it wouldn't be with Clinton. ωεαşεζøίɗ
Methinks it is a Weasel 17:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- If I were to associate the maxim "It doesn't have to be true. It should be enough that I said it." with one side in the current Presidential race, it wouldn't be with Clinton. ωεαşεζøίɗ
- http://rabuyonline.com/image/cache/data/inventory/215a-300x300.jpgVulpius (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Commie agitprop.nobs 10:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Y'know, RobS, you can be quite the polemicist. I don't why you brought up the Clintons or why Cenk being a supposed communist matters (he's not, btw) about a video about how Trump is helping anti-Semitism grow in the US.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- We're living in the Age of Clinton. It doesn't have to be true. It should be enough that I said it. nobs 09:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Uh... [citation needed] 141.134.75.236 (talk) 08:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- So does anyone actually want to discuss their thoughts about the reemergence of anti-Semitism in the Right in the US?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, it's an inevitability of treating "politically incorrect" like a positive as was started in the 90s and normalized in the generation born at that time(and raised by republicans). ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sure but this seems to have spiked so quickly. I mean David Duke actually qualified for a platform at the Louisiana Senate debate at a historically Black college. I, personally, haven't meet many Jews but people in the country around are deeply anti-Semitic now; I have heard people say that they one the Fed and Hollywood. It was probably always like this, but it was never this open and normalized.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- I am just glad that Jews today have a place where they can go if anti-Semitism gets into a position of power. Worzelpete (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sure but this seems to have spiked so quickly. I mean David Duke actually qualified for a platform at the Louisiana Senate debate at a historically Black college. I, personally, haven't meet many Jews but people in the country around are deeply anti-Semitic now; I have heard people say that they one the Fed and Hollywood. It was probably always like this, but it was never this open and normalized.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, it's an inevitability of treating "politically incorrect" like a positive as was started in the 90s and normalized in the generation born at that time(and raised by republicans). ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think antisemitism is unique here but is part of a wider resurgence of racism & xenophobia: stuff that's been been bubbling up for a long time & is now coalescing. Factors include (but not limited to): The cultural shift whereby political correctness & multiculturalism became establishment values (at least superficially) & conversely intolerance, misogyny & bigotry came to be seen as edgy, rebellious & 'just telling it like it is'. 4chan culture which exemplifies this as well as celebrating bad taste & nihilistic irony (i.e. blurring the lines between legit hate speech & trollololing) & which gave birth to Gamergate & the alt-right. + Movements, politicians & pundits who have made certain forms of (barely concealed) racism socially acceptable by framing them as legitimate political concerns (Islamophobia, Birtherism, refugees, secure the border, etc). Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
Methinks it is a Weasel 21:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Well it hasn't helped that neoliberals have used minority representation as a mask for privatization (just look at charter schools). When the largely racist/sexist/homophobic etc conservative working class Whites see their wealth decline while certain minorities rise, they get upset at the wrong people and begin to want them suppressed. Another misdirection is immigration where you see corporations exploiting immigrants but these working class Whites see the immigrants at fault for taking their jobs. On political correctness, I have always found the argument that overusing racist (or some other similar word) as an insult causes people to no longer believe that they can avoid being discriminatory and, therefore, become openly discriminatory to be interesting but never overly compelling.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- I do not think pointing out racism is ever an excuse for people being more racist. Worzelpete (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Certainly not, but racism has been commonly used as an insult and many people understand racism as an overt and explicit form of discrimination, most obviously by law. If this is your understanding than concepts like structural discrimination, White savior mentality, dog whistles, prejudice plus power, etc will seem like "political correctness" that goes too far. Again, this is just an idea that seems like it has some merit but I wouldn't stress it too much.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- I do not think pointing out racism is ever an excuse for people being more racist. Worzelpete (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
The electoral college[edit]
So apparently you do not believe the electoral college has anything to do with race or gender... Need I remind you of my essay? Worzelpete (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The recount[edit]
How does that work? Inconsistencies are discovered meaning you can't look into it in depth? I would think that places where inconsistencies (and be it only 156 789 votes in one tabulation and 156 790 in another) arise are those that are looked at extra carefully. Remember that Austria went to three rounds over something that "could have been" inconsistencies and glue for mail in ballots. Worzelpete (talk) 04:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- According to the fake news website Sorcha Faal, the recount strategy was to delay certifications til after Dec 13, cause after that date electors could not participate in the Dec 19 Electoral College vote. Now that a federal judge has ended the Michigan recount, we'll never know how many illegal votes were tabulated in Detroit. nobs 02:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)–
- Isn't it insane to vote in November and have the inauguration in January and then never use all the time this gives us? I mean we could leisurely count the national popular vote and hold two runoffs in all the time from November to January. Worzelpete (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- One of these days, on January 19th before Inauguration, China is gonna invade Taiwan, Putin the Ukraine, and Obama will bomb Racca. All the new president's plans will have to take a backseat. nobs 02:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Isn't it insane to vote in November and have the inauguration in January and then never use all the time this gives us? I mean we could leisurely count the national popular vote and hold two runoffs in all the time from November to January. Worzelpete (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Should we keep it on the front page?[edit]
Should we keep WIGO Elections on the front page? I mean, it hasn't had any new updates in over a month, and it doesn't look like it will until the next election cycle. Maybe make it a recurring feature during elections, and otherwise relegate it like WIGO Conservapedia and WIGO Citizendium? KevinR1990 (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Tought the same.--Benaresh (talk) 08:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, but inertia prevails... 109.204.116.189 (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Well, as if on cue, someone posts news from the French election. Guess we'll be covering that until May. KevinR1990 (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Having just commented out a trio of posts about Alabama from WIGO World, I'm starting to doubt the value of this page. It exists, it's easy to find the link, but still people don't use it for election stuff. So let's just drop the whole think and accept election news on World, because that's what people are doing anyway. 109.204.116.189 (talk) (Sophie) 13:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well, as if on cue, someone posts news from the French election. Guess we'll be covering that until May. KevinR1990 (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, but inertia prevails... 109.204.116.189 (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Iran[edit]
Iran has elections in May. The election of Trump evidently is shaking things up. Anybody have a good source to monitor daily? Google seems to bring back rather generic stuff about party ideologies, etc. nobs 20:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Can't help you with that nobs. However i think you found some possible Gold i always wondered how Iran works and this Article seems geniunly informative--Benaresh (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, turns out reneging on a deal with a country for cheap political points empowers factions that hate you. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
How the party or Farage will benefit from this backtracking is unknown...[edit]
...is just complete arse. I mean, why do you think the Brexit party, a party whose sole reason for being is to bring about Brexit, would not wish to split the vote with the one party that is assured to bring about Brexit? its a tough one, granted, but the answer is right there in the party name, and its literally explained in the article. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- Somehow, maybe, I think that occured to him in the months before now. It seems pretty obvious something happened to make him concede his bargaining chip to the Tories this early into the campaign. Minish (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- From what he said in his speech (which is similar to what I’ve been thinking for a couple of weeks) standing against the Tories in England (specifically the south of England) will only open the door to vote splitting which could help the Lib Dems win some seats. Its as much of a middle finger to Swinson as it is Corbyn. --RWRW (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Israeli election[edit]
Gantz got the Joint List to sign on, he's got his majority. https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2020/03/netanyahu-rival-gantz-secures-61-majority-form-government-200315163518066.html 96.241.209.54 (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Trump lawyers now blatantly asking for immunity[edit]
Does this amount to admitting that he could be charged, legally? https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/05/12/politics/temporary-presidential-immunity-jay-sekulow-supreme-court/index.html 65.217.55.195 (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Would that now be immunity from the virus? Anna Livia (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Trump´s postponing the U.S elections[edit]
What do you guys think? I don´t trust it for a single second. 90.69.232.11 (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Blaze_Zero
- He can't do it by himself. Only the Congress has the authority to change the election date, and Democrat controlled house isn't going to.Coigreach (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Even if he still believes the office of the president to be on par with the powers of the autocrats he openly admires and actually thinks he can put off his doom with a later election date, this is mainly him flipping the board the same as before and after he won in 2016: he's giving himself an out so he can salvage his ego if the results say something other than everyone loves him. There will be no delayed election short of an asteroid, he's just crying foul. Artificius (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- So, he's just bluffing again?90.69.232.11 (talk) 09:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC) Blaze_Zero
- I think so: he's either thinking out loud, bluffing, or legitimately trying to push his luck and test the limits of his power. My money's on shades of the first two because he's a spin doctor and I've gotta believe he's learned by now that being president of the United States isn't like being president of the Russian Federation. He couldn't even force his own party out of the gate on Obamacare. Artificius (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- So, he's just bluffing again?90.69.232.11 (talk) 09:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC) Blaze_Zero
- Even if he still believes the office of the president to be on par with the powers of the autocrats he openly admires and actually thinks he can put off his doom with a later election date, this is mainly him flipping the board the same as before and after he won in 2016: he's giving himself an out so he can salvage his ego if the results say something other than everyone loves him. There will be no delayed election short of an asteroid, he's just crying foul. Artificius (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Trump’s attempts to delay the election have nothing to do with Covid. His motivations are entirely selfish. Big surprise there, right? ._. (talk) 18:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Counting votes in less than 48 hours?[edit]
So, here is Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) proposing a bill that would force mail-in ballots to be counted within 24 hours of ballots closing, with anything not counted in that time being ignored - in the sarcastically named Help America Vote Act of 2020. Opinions? RationalSpanish (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Although the Dems' majority in the HOR would likely block it, this is still a shameless attempt by the Reps to monopolize our government, and it shows just how desperate these clowns are getting since they feel so threatened by liberal voters. And yet if Biden wins, I'll bet a pi-minute block that these very same people who preach the integrity of voting like it's the Gospel will all of a sudden blame it on the age-old "voter fraud" bogeyman. --Goatspeed. Fossil evidence of my evolutionCircularR
asoningSee what I'm planning 20:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Although the Dems' majority in the HOR would likely block it, this is still a shameless attempt by the Reps to monopolize our government, and it shows just how desperate these clowns are getting since they feel so threatened by liberal voters. And yet if Biden wins, I'll bet a pi-minute block that these very same people who preach the integrity of voting like it's the Gospel will all of a sudden blame it on the age-old "voter fraud" bogeyman. --Goatspeed. Fossil evidence of my evolutionCircularR
Evo Morales and MAS claim victory, Anez regime refuses to release results[edit]
https://twitter.com/OVargas52/status/1318037052206841856 96.241.209.54 (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Fundraging[edit]
For the detail about fundraging, perhaps we could put this link there? I think it would be very informative and helpful to point this out for readers. LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 18:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- @LT Lol, you read the Epoch Times? What a rube. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
jeremy corbyn suspended...[edit]
...after lambasting the Blairite wing for their hypocrisy during the antisemitism campaign. no he wasnt and no he didnt. thats twisting what he actually said to be some kind of massive slam against blairites and suspension was a tit for tat response. curiously, there is no mention of the EHRC antisemitism report which found Labour responsible for haressment and discrimination during corbyns tenure, with political interference in the complaints process from corbyns office, as well as a lack of leadership over antisemitism that the report states 'it is hard not to conclude that antisemitism within the Labour party could have been tackled more effectively if the leadership had chosen to do so,'.
Corbyn has been suspended by rejecting the overall conclusions of the report stating 'problem was “dramatically overstated for political reasons'. pretty much the same attitude hes taken throughout his time as leader, and one the reasons it dragged on so long. the report should have drawn a line under all this, and he could have just accepted the report, it hadnt after all singled him out for criticism, but nope, fuck party unity or taking any any kind of responsibility. we can just blame blairites. not that there are any actual blairites. not-corbyns is a more accurate description. blairites and corbynstas. two tribes identified with an irrelevence. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- also, this has nothing to do with any election. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- I was the one who made the initial post on the WIGO: Elections page, but it seems someone edited over my original post to complain about Blairites. I thought Corbyn being suspended from Labour was some much needed comedic relief to an otherwise unpleasant year. As for it not being about elections... true, I just though it was more suited here than WIGO:World. —RWRW (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Except that Jeremy Corbyn was criticising people for cynically using the antisemitism campaign to discriminate and harass leftists. –Tuxer (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- 'but the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media.' is what he said. he does not directly mention leftists, he could easily mean the labour party as a whole. that would require being a bigger man but sadly his partisanship is very much part of the problem. to discriminate and harass leftists is a reach, and considering the content of the report it would be unwise for corbyn to be making the assertion.
- as has been noted, the report is damning. take a read through, if you have not already. its even handed, the loto, the nec disputes panel, the ncc, the glu, all come in for criticisms, all have failings identified. political interference in the complaints procedure, effecting who and what was investigated, and what sanctions applied was a significant failing. it mentions the loto was often seen as making decisions on the complaints process when it should not have involved itself at all. combined with other significant failings, such as lack of clear guidance, poor record keeping, decisions not explained or inadequately followed through, recommendation by of sanctions by one branch disregarded by another with no explanation. decision making at times as arbitrary, other times based on political expediency, other times it was just the lack guidance and leadership, with no one having evidence of being qualified on the nec dispute panel to discuss complaints of antisemitism. anything on social media was considered not their problem. training available was neither mandatory nor adequate.
- this all contributes to the the unlawful act notice which states 1. the labour committed unlawful haressment of its jewish members through its action, 2. party practice and policy of political interference in antisemtism complaints amounted to indirect discrimination against jewish members, through the loto's involvement in politically sensitive cases, and in its investigations into antisemitism specifically. 3. failing to provide adequate training in the handling of complaint of antisemitism was again indirect discrimination of jewish members.
- the case made in the report fleshs all this out. this suggests failing were significant, the complaints process fundementally flawed. in light of corbyns statement of the problem being 'dramatically overstated' it is in direct contradiction to the reports findings. we cant support his claim regarding actual incidences of antisemetic incidents or actions from labour members because the labour party's own record keeping on the subject has been so poor, and considering the policy on socia media, it was mostly ignored. we cannot tell if it is overstated or not - they were not keeping tabs. and we cant support his claim over political interference or through inadequate procedure and training, because the reports goes into great length on these areas, its the bulk of the report.
- corbyns claims are problematic because as is noted in the report the issue of minimising or denying the existence of antisemitism often formed part of the antisemitic acts in complaints that were upheld - cases of ken livingstone and pat bromley are specifically cited. the downplaying of antisemitism by mps and officials claiming complaints were politically inspired gave the public the impression that labour did not take antisemitism seriously. looking at the failings of the complaints procedure, the lack of training, effective guidelines, political interference, arbitrary application of what little guidance there was tells us, in fact, labour did not take it seriously. its further evidenced by the complaints process for sexual harassment - mandatory and relevent training, effective procedures and guidelines formed and put in place rapidly. even when they grudgingly admitted there was a problem, they dragged their feet, some policies where removed, but guidance still lacking and the application patchy, still no proper training. corbyn in his statement claims to have fixed it or at least greatly improved it. he had not. they managed a rapid overhaul of sexual harassment complaints, why not for antisemitism? they did not take it seriously. people making complaints and those accused were treated poorly by this situation, ignored, or harshly treated or too leniently, seemingly on a whim. jewish labour members did not see that they were taken seriously over this, an existing culture that saw complaints of antisemitism as politically inspired is the basis of indirect discrimination ruling.
- its further compounded by the fact that many of these failings were already known. no less than 3 previous reports had made recommendations addressing these issues. they were not implemented. why not, if it is not that labour did not take claims seriously?
- now from corbyns statement, he claims to have made great strides in fixing problems that were dramatically overstated. he seemingly does not understand the the nature of the situation and has not and still does not take it seriously. he never has. he was the leader of the labour party. his office the loto is directly implicated, even though he is not. throughout he has shown a lack of leadership over the whole affair. he could have resolved all this years ago. his statement tells us why he hadnt - he is part of the problem. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Most parties are going to have a 'loose cannon' or two (some of whom are retained for their entertainment value, are 'the outliers', 'best kept inside the party rather than outside it' (the LBJ/Hoover quote) etc. There will also be a few cases of 'not engaging brain before opening mouth' (what the speaker actually meant was fairly harmless/stating the obvious) and 'open mic incidents' and 'that is what is said in a particular cultural context and the negative overtones are genuinely not noticed' etc.
Occasional 'wrong statements' happen - but 'once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is a bad habit' - there were too many examples for people not to draw the conclusion they did (quite apart from the association with the PLO etc). Anna Livia (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Surely we have rules against editing other peoples entries to WIGO? Seems a bit cheeky to me.
- Corbyn's statement seemed ill judged, especially with its timing. The report should have been left for people to reflect on it without becoming a political football but I kind of understand the sentiment.
- The conservatives in recent years actually went so far as to support an anti-Semite in Victor Orban and lent him votes in the European Parliament. The conservative party has its own history anti-Semitism not just in its allies but in its rank and file members and in its front and back benchers.
- Never the less we have seen very little in the media clamouring for an investigation into the Conservative Party's failings to grapple with anti-Semitism. One can't help but feel a little cynical when it sees that in Labours' case it's all guns blazing.
- Media analysis suggests that media of almost all stripes regularly mis-represented/exaggerated him or at least gave far more prominence to his critics than his supporters and it's hard not to come to the conclusion that similar forces were at play here, even though the report shows that the grievance had plenty of merit.
- Kind of just want Corbyn to be gone really. But I don't think the press is going to let that happen. His corpse will be flogged continually for the next decade whether we want to move on or not.
- As for party unity? I think crying about that now is like shutting the barn door once the horse has bolted. His first general election had seniors members of the Labour party devastated and depressed because *checks notes* the candidate they were supposed to help, did better than they expected. In hindsight Corbyn was always going to threaten party unity by dint of his ideological differences. Get ready, it's... (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- WIGO entries can be edited to provide extra information from where I'm coming from. Someone adding useless platitudes/opinions isn't... desirable, but I can't be arsed to make an issue out of it. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! /
/ 
/ 
) 10:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- WIGO entries can be edited to provide extra information from where I'm coming from. Someone adding useless platitudes/opinions isn't... desirable, but I can't be arsed to make an issue out of it. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! /
QLD state election[edit]
Looks like Palaszczuk is gonna win it, but also it looks like One Nation and Jackie Trad got OWNED lmao and the Greens did pretty well. Good result overall. 49.197.26.158 (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Trump co-opts all saints day to be about illegal immigration[edit]
unsure if it should go under WIGOW or WIGOE. Gives me the vibe of him wanting to destroy anything he can on the way out https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/trump-november-1-day-remembrance-killed-illegal-aliens-b1479852.html 96.241.209.54 (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
A WIGO for nice things (crossposted from WIGO: World, WIGO:COVID to get more visibility)[edit]
So as discussed here, I have been setting up a WIGO in my userspace to focus specifically on positive news stories and whatnot. It is now live here, and I would appreciate some help making it look nice! Additionally, while I don’t think it’s worth making into its own Official WIGO, I was wondering if/when I could link to it somewhere in the WIGO pages for COVID, elections, and world? Any help is appreciated, thank you so much! I’m going to bed now but yeah, if you wanna have a go I think it would be very nice :) 💙 ASELAនិយាយ 💙 16:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Innaccurate summary of article[edit]
The article being used as proof that Gohmer said violence is the only option after the courts reject Trump's antics doesn't even mention him by name. Has someone accidentally used the wrong article or something? Lets face it, Gohmer is a dropkick so it shouldn't be difficult to find proof for all the asinine drivel he has spouted 203.100.222.84 (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Pootiness[edit]
|
|---|
|
Bitches lie. Believe all women my ass. I am so glad he is going to be the Senator elect! Go Warnock! Go Biden! Go Obama! LegalizeAbuseByBlackRevs (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
|
Stephen King[edit]
Will add [1]. Anna Livia (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Here it comes[edit]
The clash in Washington - [2] (and probably elsewhere by now).
Where is Sergei Eisenstein when you need him? Anna Livia (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The bill letting the Arizona legislature change their election results[edit]
What in the goddamn fuck? Is that even legal? If so, why, and how could anyone justify that? Fuck me dead. 💙 ASELAនិយាយ 💙 18:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- I wouldn't worry about it; Dems now control most of Arizona's state govt. at this point, this bill won't go very far methinks. If anything, I think it's good that after joining tRump in pissing on John McCain's grave and censuring his wife and their governor, this will be the final nail in the coffin for Arizona's GOP chapter. --Goatspeed. Fossil evidence of my evolutionCircularRasoningSee what I'm planning 18:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don’t kno much about Arizona but what mostly concerns me is, could any/every other state with a GOP government also do this?? 💙 ASELAនិយាយ 💙 18:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Probably, this new precedent set by the AZ Reps is quite disturbing (especially given the fears of gerrymandering to keep Texas reliably red as much as possible by disenfranchising hispanics, Austiners and blacks for example), but in places like Georgia and Michigan it would also just give the Dems ammunition to use against them methinks. --Goatspeed. Fossil evidence of my evolutionCircularRasoningSee what I'm planning 18:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ducey would likely veto such a measure anyways. There are worse republicans than him-Hastur! (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- I hear they even censured Ducey for not being right-wing enough. --Goatspeed. Fossil evidence of my evolutionCircularRasoningSee what I'm planning 19:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ducey and John McCain's widow. And Jon Kyl, too. Very curious to see how the next elections play out. Particularly the primaries-Hastur! (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's essentially now guaranteed for the dems, thanks to the Arizona GOP's infighting and self-immolating censurings. And since it seems Ducey won't run against the recently elected Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) in the midterms, I don't see Kelly losing either, especially thanks to shit like this bill he can use against the Reps. --Goatspeed. Fossil evidence of my evolutionCircularRasoningSee what I'm planning 08:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's essentially now guaranteed for the dems, thanks to the Arizona GOP's infighting and self-immolating censurings. And since it seems Ducey won't run against the recently elected Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) in the midterms, I don't see Kelly losing either, especially thanks to shit like this bill he can use against the Reps. --Goatspeed. Fossil evidence of my evolutionCircularR
- Ducey and John McCain's widow. And Jon Kyl, too. Very curious to see how the next elections play out. Particularly the primaries-Hastur! (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- I hear they even censured Ducey for not being right-wing enough. --Goatspeed. Fossil evidence of my evolutionCircularR
- Ducey would likely veto such a measure anyways. There are worse republicans than him-Hastur! (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Probably, this new precedent set by the AZ Reps is quite disturbing (especially given the fears of gerrymandering to keep Texas reliably red as much as possible by disenfranchising hispanics, Austiners and blacks for example), but in places like Georgia and Michigan it would also just give the Dems ammunition to use against them methinks. --Goatspeed. Fossil evidence of my evolutionCircularR
- I don’t kno much about Arizona but what mostly concerns me is, could any/every other state with a GOP government also do this?? 💙 ASELAនិយាយ 💙 18:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Sidney "Kraken" Powell tries to get the defamation suit against her thrown out[edit]
Sounds like she's taking a page right out of Tucker Carlson's book here. Honestly wouldn't be too surprised if this works for her;Hope it doesn't though. PhoxyDude (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- Her defense boils down to - "I was lying and everyone knew I was lying". Ace://about blank 01:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- "But me" Thats a key part of the defense, to get around the actual malice clause in defamation. Revolverman (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
What is it with this McCrae Dowless guy?[edit]
This is the third time he's tried to rig an election in the past four years! — Unsigned, by: Thefantodayhtml5 / talk / contribs
Don't give the Cyber Punks Ninjas too much credit[edit]
I've found 3 sources from across the political spectrum (one of which might be paywalled) that say that elections experts say that the crank Cyber Ninja auditors made up their numbers. I know it's unlikely to change the results of the election, but from a statistical perspective, their number should be taken with a grain of salt, at best. They should not be given too much credit, or it may set a precedent for more bullshit partisan election audits in the future, even in the face of bipartisan opposition. G Man (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Anyway, I just wanted to include this disclaimer so y'all won't think this is another case of wandalism. XD G Man (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- For soft paywalls like some prominent online newspapers, article pages can be read through https://archive.is.
- Anyway, yeah, the whole thing was discussed earlier in the Saloon Bar and the whole audit seemed like something of a joke, apart from being a waste of money. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
New Sabato predictions for 2022[edit]
Sabato released new predictions following 2021 elections. NV, AZ, GA and PA are tossups. NH is still lean blue (?) and Colorado is likely blue. NC is lean red, while FL, OH and MO are likely red. Everything else is solid. As such, Republicans are projected to have 49, Democrats 47, and two tossups. Republicans need to win just two of them to have a majority, Dems need 3.
For governor, we now have AZ, GA, KS, PA and WI. ME, MI, OR, NV are likely blue, as is MD which will be a pickup. CO, NM, IL, MN, NY, CT, and RI are likely blue, and HI as well as CA (I guess due to the failed recall) are solid blue. NH is lean red (I guess if Sununu retires), while TX, IA, AK, FL, MA, VT and OH are likely red. AR, AL, TN, SC, SD, NE, OK, ID and WY are solid red. Keep in mind VA and NJ already happened.
As for the House of Reps, using the data we have, it currently shows that for the new districts, AK will be likely Republican, DE is safe Democrat (fun fact - they actually flipped in the 2010 red wave to blue. Huh.), AR-01, AR-02, AR-03, and AR-04 as safe Republican, as is IN-02, IN-03, IN-04, IN-05, IN-06, IN-08 and IN-09. IN-01 is likely Democrat and IN-07 is safe Democrat. ME-02 is a tossup but ME-01 is safe Democrat. ND, SD and WY are safe Republican (but keep an eye on the primary in the latter). NE-01 and NE-03 are safe Republican and with gerrymandering, NE-02 is now lean Republican. OR-02 is safe Republican, with OR-04, OR-05 and OR-06 as likely Democrat and OR-01 and OR-03 as safe Democrat. Also, VT is safe Democrat. --American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Huh?[edit]
What happened? My post on the Barbados election at first was +5, but now is -105. Is there a glitch? Or did 110 people dislike my post? I might post this to RW:TS if it gets no replies here. --Andrew5 (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Could it be that at some point in the past someone used the wrong poll number? So these votes reflect what happened then? Queexchthonic murmurings 20:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Very strange indeed. I just did a quick search for the poll number on the page - it is only used once there, so if it is a duplicate then that is in the archives.Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- maybe you all hate barbados? racists. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- I checked the 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 archves and it's not there. And generally polls don't get over 120 votes. Maybe it's sockpuppetry? --Andrew5 (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Now it's -107...--Andrew5 (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm, it might be sockpuppetry, but not related to the Barbados story specifically. The story about Alabama's gerrymandered congressional map getting blocked has 73 downvotes and is -37 overall. The Barbados story is up to 163 downvotes and is -130 overall as of this comment. The stories still have the usual 20-40 upvotes a normal link would get. Why it's only being done with election news and not the other WIGO pages, I don't know. But it is enough to bother me, and I don't usually comment on [what seems like] trivial stuff like this.--GVOLTT (talk) 10:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Now it's -107...--Andrew5 (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- I checked the 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 archves and it's not there. And generally polls don't get over 120 votes. Maybe it's sockpuppetry? --Andrew5 (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- maybe you all hate barbados? racists. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Very strange indeed. I just did a quick search for the poll number on the page - it is only used once there, so if it is a duplicate then that is in the archives.Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Fuck[edit]
Welp, here comes the next Intifada! Vee (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- Genuinely one of the worst outcomes that could have happened.
Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Edit request / suggestion[edit]
May I suggest / ask for copyediting the "Pavel / Zeman " entry? Specifically moving words "who has been criticised for pandering to dictators like Putin, and politicking the largely ceremonial role" after "Zeman". The current wording makes it sounds almost like that "March" has been criticised. Thanks--2A00:1028:83BE:91A2:8B9:CA59:C411:5C7B (talk) 09:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Bueller? Anyone? --2A00:1028:83BE:91A2:6877:9F86:33C9:7D0B (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
nigerian elections[edit]
while the elections technically took place in february, i listed it as a march entry because the article was last updated on the first of march (and thus, the published date is as such). at the time the article was published, it was still the 28th of february. (it was also still feb. 28 in my timezone when the entry was added on here.)
i know i previously undid someones else's edit, so this post is to make it clear that i changed my mind and reverted it back to what it was before. The G (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- On that topic, I'd like to request an edit of the entry; specifically, the "opposing PPD" bit. It should read instead as the "opposing PDP". TDB579 (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
edit request[edit]
the estonian election one has "In the" duplicated, and I'm pretty sure that isn't meant to be the case 149.19.40.248 (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Bumpf
- Done. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
People's Party[edit]
Are they really far right? IluzasipalStone them! 13:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- I was put off by that. They are more of a mess than I knew they were though, based on what's been added. Chillpilled (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
PSOE "lost" the election[edit]
The reason why I've put lost in quotes in the WIGO entry is basically because there's not really a concept of a "winner" and a "loser" when it comes to who becomes Prime Minister. Spain is a parliamentarian democracy, you don't choose the Prime Minister directly, but rather you choose Senadores (Senators, upper house) and Diputados (Deputies, the lower house). Unless you have an absolute majority in the Cortes Generales, you have to have support from other parties. Feijóo has said that he has "the right to govern" as the "winner" of the elections, but it really doesn't work like that in Spain, and I'm sure he knows this by the way. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
The far right triumphs in Argentina's primary elections[edit]
Hi. I'm new so I can't add this to the main page, so here goes: Far-right outsider takes shock lead in Argentinian primary elections
"Javier Milei, an admirer of Donald Trump, thinks the climate crisis is a lie and wants sale of human organs to be legalised". If that sounds bad, it gets much worse. The man is a certified loon worthy of an article here, which I may or may not create (I don't think I have the energy, but we'll see). Tough times ahead. Argentinator (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- Disregarding the.... everything else, how the hell would a legalized human organ market even work in practice? There's simply too many practical problems for that to effectively work. Does Argentina not have organ donors? Carthage (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- From the Wiki it sounds like this guy is both a conspiracy theory right-wing nut in the machismo tradition of the Vladimir Putin style fascist, as well as an ultra-libertarian loon (except where such positions clash, of course). So he supports Austrian school bullshit (eg destroy the central bank!), and has crankery not only on "organ markets" but he also failed to condemn a theoretical marketplace that sold children. But he is also steadfast against abortion in all circumstances (oh, how libertarian!), a frequent user of the cultural marxism snarl word, an opponent of sex education, and a climate change denier.
- The thing is, "Argentina" and "poor economy" have gone together unfortunately for decades, and they are in the middle of a bad spot right now. So I guess some people are looking for "an outsider" to "blow up the system", no matter how unqualified, and no matter how the many previous "outsider politicians" have largely been disasters. First impression is a Milei election (should such happen) would probably make things on this front much worse, not better, by scaring business away with lunatic policies. So... BobJohnson (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)