Arnold Schwarzenegger for President

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28723
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Re: Arnold Schwarzenegger for President

Post by Broomstick »

A Terminator also focuses on the success of the mission rather than its ego.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
User avatar
Korto
Jedi Master
Posts: 1196
Joined: 2007-12-19 07:31am
Location: Newcastle, Aus

Re: Arnold Schwarzenegger for President

Post by Korto »

One of you yanks should start a petition to have Arnold replace Trump. Maybe it could call for an "Emergency placement, to be retroactively legitimized by constitutional amendment". It'll be interesting to see how many signatures it gets.

And Bobo is so thin-skinned, it's just fun to poke him.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor
User avatar
Eternal_Freedom
Castellan
Posts: 10361
Joined: 2010-03-09 02:16pm
Location: CIC, Battlestar Temeraire

Re: Arnold Schwarzenegger for President

Post by Eternal_Freedom »

If you did have a T-800 as President, just think of the fortune you'd save on Secret Service protection!
Baltar: "I don't want to miss a moment of the last Battlestar's destruction!"
Centurion: "Sir, I really think you should look at the other Battlestar."
Baltar: "What are you babbling about other...it's impossible!"
Centurion: "No. It is a Battlestar."

Corrax Entry 7:17: So you walk eternally through the shadow realms, standing against evil where all others falter. May your thirst for retribution never quench, may the blood on your sword never dry, and may we never need you again.
User avatar
Gandalf
SD.net White Wizard
Posts: 16285
Joined: 2002-09-16 11:13pm
Location: A video store in Australia

Re: Arnold Schwarzenegger for President

Post by Gandalf »

Simon_Jester wrote:Just out of curiosity, are you in the habit of morally condemning people who make a distasteful choice because they believe the alternatives are worse? What's your philosophical basis for doing so?
I wouldn't say it's a habit. For this instance, I just think that the GOP is an ugly organisation and Trump is also quite bad.

Then again, perhaps I don't understand ALLEGIANCE TO THE PARTY. Has your friend been to Room 101 yet?
"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"

- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist

"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Arnold Schwarzenegger for President

Post by Simon_Jester »

Are you not familiar with phrases like "party allegiance?" I know the phrase is not unknown in Australia at large.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Tribble
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3082
Joined: 2008-11-18 11:28am
Location: stardestroyer.net

Re: Arnold Schwarzenegger for President

Post by Tribble »

Broomstick wrote:A Terminator also focuses on the success of the mission rather than its ego.
Enternal_Freedom wrote:If you did have a T-800 as President, just think of the fortune you'd save on Secret Service protection!

Also, unlike the current president a T-800 can be set to learn from its experiences. Trump is definitely stuck on Read-Only.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - The official Troll motto, as stated by Adam Savage
User avatar
Gandalf
SD.net White Wizard
Posts: 16285
Joined: 2002-09-16 11:13pm
Location: A video store in Australia

Re: Arnold Schwarzenegger for President

Post by Gandalf »

A problem with President Terminator is that his skin will eventually rot away. Then you need to hire someone to keep POTUS shiny and smudge free.

Terminator 2020: A shinier President, for a brighter tomorrow.
Simon_Jester wrote:Are you not familiar with phrases like "party allegiance?" I know the phrase is not unknown in Australia at large.
Yes, of course I am familiar with the phrase. Hence the reaction. I get it amongst the professional political class where the focus is on maintaining relationships to factions which may or may not be in power. One must be seen to aptly praise [Insert leader name], lest one fall out of favour.

In a voter though, it's fucking hilarious and has a wonderful sense of pretension about it. Is this perhaps one of those bizarre post-2001 American things, where feeling loyal to a political factions makes people feel useful in the Grand Existential Struggle against Eurasia terrorism?
"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"

- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist

"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Arnold Schwarzenegger for President

Post by The Romulan Republic »

Yeah, voter loyalty kind of pisses me off, partly because as a Sanders supporter, I had to put up with a lot of "Sanders isn't a real Democrat", as if the most important quality in a nominee is a lifetime of fealty to the party rather than their overall character and what they will do for the people.

I'd say I'm a loyal Democrat insofar as I believe that the Democratic Party, and my being a member of the Democratic Party, serves the principles and policies I believe in better than any other existing option. Where that to change, so would my party affiliation.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28723
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Re: Arnold Schwarzenegger for President

Post by Broomstick »

Gandalf wrote:A problem with President Terminator is that his skin will eventually rot away. Then you need to hire someone to keep POTUS shiny and smudge free.
We really need to do a "Top Ten Reasons a T-800 Terminator Would Make a Better President Than Trump"

Also, Terminator Genysis established that while several decades will result in the aging of a T-800 skin, and graying of the hair, their fleshy integument won't necessarily "rot away". It's a cyborg, not a zombie.
Gandalf wrote:
Simon_Jester wrote:Are you not familiar with phrases like "party allegiance?" I know the phrase is not unknown in Australia at large.
Yes, of course I am familiar with the phrase. Hence the reaction. I get it amongst the professional political class where the focus is on maintaining relationships to factions which may or may not be in power. One must be seen to aptly praise [Insert leader name], lest one fall out of favour.

In a voter though, it's fucking hilarious and has a wonderful sense of pretension about it. Is this perhaps one of those bizarre post-2001 American things, where feeling loyal to a political factions makes people feel useful in the Grand Existential Struggle against Eurasia terrorism?
Nope, "party allegiance" extends well back into American history. Was a thing at least as early as the early 20th Century, may well go all the way back to the 1700's.

I agree. It's stupid.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Arnold Schwarzenegger for President

Post by Simon_Jester »

The thing is, America only has two parties. If one of them avows principles you support, but then betrays them, while the other opposes the principles you support... What are you supposed to do? Say "I'm done with politics forever?" Or at least try to keep fixing the party whose principles you support?

You can't support the other party in good conscience, your own party at least contains people who agree with you. So canceling your membership or whatever doesn't seem like a good solution to the problem.

I'm not talking about mindless support of whoever a party endorses, or supporting a bad candidate because they're part of the party machine. But the idea that people are supposed to migrate quickly and lightly away from one of the two mainstream political parties when some of its politicians take a sharp wrong turn... That is pushing the principle a bit much in the context of a two-party system.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Arnold Schwarzenegger for President

Post by The Romulan Republic »

I would say "Register as an independent and support candidates on a case by case basis." Or try to form a third party, if you really are convinced both major parties are irreconcilable with your values, though that's a long shot that tends to amount to little more than fringe groups obsessed with ideological purity splitting the vote.

Of course, the problem with being an independent is that some primaries are closed to independents. This is, in fact, a major reason why I switched from Independent to Dem. way back- so I could vote in the primaries.

Primaries are sometimes when the voters actually have the most options to choose from, in a way. If their's one good thing that's come out of this miserable cluster fuck of an election, its that more attention is being paid to, and more people participated in, the primary process.

But because of this, if their is one aspect of our electoral system besides abolishing or neutering the EC that I would change, its probably getting rid of closed primaries.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.
User avatar
Gandalf
SD.net White Wizard
Posts: 16285
Joined: 2002-09-16 11:13pm
Location: A video store in Australia

Re: Arnold Schwarzenegger for President

Post by Gandalf »

Broomstick wrote:
Gandalf wrote:A problem with President Terminator is that his skin will eventually rot away. Then you need to hire someone to keep POTUS shiny and smudge free.
We really need to do a "Top Ten Reasons a T-800 Terminator Would Make a Better President Than Trump"

Also, Terminator Genysis established that while several decades will result in the aging of a T-800 skin, and graying of the hair, their fleshy integument won't necessarily "rot away". It's a cyborg, not a zombie.
I did not see that one. I was going off the first film, where he's slowly rotting throughout the piece.
Gandalf wrote:Yes, of course I am familiar with the phrase. Hence the reaction. I get it amongst the professional political class where the focus is on maintaining relationships to factions which may or may not be in power. One must be seen to aptly praise [Insert leader name], lest one fall out of favour.

In a voter though, it's fucking hilarious and has a wonderful sense of pretension about it. Is this perhaps one of those bizarre post-2001 American things, where feeling loyal to a political factions makes people feel useful in the Grand Existential Struggle against Eurasia terrorism?
Nope, "party allegiance" extends well back into American history. Was a thing at least as early as the early 20th Century, may well go all the way back to the 1700's.
Yeah, I could have worded that better. I was thinking of the modern iterations of party loyalty with my question, set against the last decade and a half of political ups and downs. One of the reasons I keep chuckling at the defence of the idea of party loyalty in any serious conversation is that I always picture bad Cold War films where the villains are accusing people of insufficient loyalty to the relevant party.
I agree. It's stupid.
On that we agree.
"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"

- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist

"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin
User avatar
Gandalf
SD.net White Wizard
Posts: 16285
Joined: 2002-09-16 11:13pm
Location: A video store in Australia

Re: Arnold Schwarzenegger for President

Post by Gandalf »

TRR said a lot of what I would have liked to say, but I'll put up some other stuff.
Simon_Jester wrote:The thing is, America only has two parties. If one of them avows principles you support, but then betrays them, while the other opposes the principles you support... What are you supposed to do? Say "I'm done with politics forever?" Or at least try to keep fixing the party whose principles you support?

You can't support the other party in good conscience, your own party at least contains people who agree with you. So canceling your membership or whatever doesn't seem like a good solution to the problem.

I'm not talking about mindless support of whoever a party endorses, or supporting a bad candidate because they're part of the party machine. But the idea that people are supposed to migrate quickly and lightly away from one of the two mainstream political parties when some of its politicians take a sharp wrong turn... That is pushing the principle a bit much in the context of a two-party system.
A lesser evil is still an evil. If one willingly associates with it, the results are on them.

A person voted for Trump? That's on them, regardless of the reason. A person still calls themselves a Republican? Evidently current events aren't enough to make them disassociate from the group. If one is indeed working to improve the party, then those actions are commendable, but they're still in the same muck as the guy their party decided to put in the big chair.
"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"

- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist

"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Arnold Schwarzenegger for President

Post by The Romulan Republic »

By that standard, pretty much anyone who has ever voted in a US election (or the elections of most other countries, I imagine) at the Federal level is responsible for murder.

Their is no perfect party, of course, and normally, I expect I would be wrong to hold party affiliation against someone so strongly.

The distinction, to me, is that the Republican Party has gone beyond policy differences, or even philosophical differences, and has implicitly (and in some cases, explicitly) declared itself hostile to fundamental tenants of democracy and the rule of law. To me, at this point, saying "I'm a moderate Republican" honestly isn't all that different from saying "I'm a moderate Klansman"- a statement that's ludicrous on the face of it, and offers no excuse.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Arnold Schwarzenegger for President

Post by Simon_Jester »

The Romulan Republic wrote:By that standard, pretty much anyone who has ever voted in a US election (or the elections of most other countries, I imagine) at the Federal level is responsible for murder.

Their is no perfect party, of course, and normally, I expect I would be wrong to hold party affiliation against someone so strongly.

The distinction, to me, is that the Republican Party has gone beyond policy differences, or even philosophical differences, and has implicitly (and in some cases, explicitly) declared itself hostile to fundamental tenants of democracy and the rule of law. To me, at this point, saying "I'm a moderate Republican" honestly isn't all that different from saying "I'm a moderate Klansman"- a statement that's ludicrous on the face of it, and offers no excuse.
That is an utterly terrible analogy.

The Klan's mission statement is overtly racist. There is no other reason to join the Klan. If you are not yourself a racist, you don't join the Ku Klux Klan.

The Republican Party's stated mission is not overtly "break democracy." Many people joined the party for other reasons, and never consented to attacking democracy and the rule of law. There are many reasons to join the Republican Party besides "I hate the rule of law." In fact, the vast majority of all Republicans did not join the Republican Party with the intent to break democracy, and don't actually even want to break democracy.

You... do realize that, right? Because if you don't, I'm seriously worried about you.

Anyway, the point is, it is valid to say:
1a) The Klan is racist.
2a) There is no reason to join the Klan, other than racism.
3a) Therefore anyone who does join the Klan can reasonably judged as a racist.

It is not valid to say:
1b) The Republican Party is acting in a way that threatens democracy.
2b) There is no reason to join the Republican Party, other than to threaten democracy.
3b) Therefore, every member of the Republican Party can reasonably be judged as someone who wants to threaten democracy.

Because statement (2b) is simply not true. So the analogy breaks down, very badly. There are a huge number of people who joined the Republican Party for other reasons, never had any intention of supporting a fascist movement, still do not have any intention of doing that, don't believe they're doing that, and if they ever did actually come to believe they were doing that, would immediately stop.

Talking about them like they're all willing fascist goons is pure folly. Doing that makes it impossible to participate constructively in politics, OR in the struggle to actually do anything about the real threat to American democracy. It is useful only for sitting around circle-jerking on Internet forums about how terrible The Others are.
Gandalf wrote:A lesser evil is still an evil. If one willingly associates with it, the results are on them.

A person voted for Trump? That's on them, regardless of the reason. A person still calls themselves a Republican? Evidently current events aren't enough to make them disassociate from the group. If one is indeed working to improve the party, then those actions are commendable, but they're still in the same muck as the guy their party decided to put in the big chair.
You can be in muck for reasons that aren't your fault.

The question is always going to be, now that you are in muck, what are you going to do about it? There are answers to this question that deserve no moral blame, but which do not reduce to "leave the muck." Especially when the choice in the eyes of the person making the decision is "leave this muck to go wallow in the other muck."

This seems like a fairly irreducible set of common-sense moral principles to me.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Arnold Schwarzenegger for President

Post by The Romulan Republic »

Its not a perfect analogy, but the point of it was that the Republican Party has become a fundamentally extremist (and, yes, bigoted) organization.

I doubt that the majority of Republican voters get up thinking "I want to destroy democracy" (though some of them probably have definitions of "democracy" not terribly different from those of the 19th. Century), but they are willing to support, or at least accept, policies which blatantly undermine democracy and the rule of law. Their leadership certainly does, and the majority of Republican voters are at least willing to tolerate that leadership remaining in power.

At best, moderate Republicans are deluding themselves. That's my point.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Arnold Schwarzenegger for President

Post by Simon_Jester »

The Romulan Republic wrote:Its not a perfect analogy, but the point of it was that the Republican Party has become a fundamentally extremist (and, yes, bigoted) organization.
"The Republican Party" is such a large collective mass of semi-coordinated structures and groups that calling the whole thing 'fundamentally extremist' is about as accurate as labeling the whole Democratic Party "a bunch of socialists." Or worse yet, "a bunch of communist revolutionaries."

Again, if you're going to go down this road, you doom yourself to complete political uselessness, except maybe as a source of donation money. I cannot interact successfully with a thing, if I'm so allergic to it that I can't even talk about it without casting anathemas down on it from my (imaginary) pulpit.

This is basic common sense. If I can't even recognize that there exist people on the other side who are rational human beings capable of being reached, because I'm so busy getting drawn into the endless circlejerk about how 'deluded' and 'extremist' they are... what's the point? Seriously, what is the point of even trying to engage with a political system that contains nothing but Captain Planet villains on the other side of the table?
I doubt that the majority of Republican voters get up thinking "I want to destroy democracy" (though some of them probably have definitions of "democracy" not terribly different from those of the 19th. Century)...
"You doubt that the majority..." How generous of you. :roll:
...but they are willing to support, or at least accept, policies which blatantly undermine democracy and the rule of law.
To be quite frank, one of the reasons they're willing to do that is because their leaders at least listen to them about political issues and don't automatically dismiss them and tell them they're wrong and dumb about literally everything.

Tell me, is there a single issue you'd be prepared to compromise with moderate Republicans on? How many? Because if there aren't a fair number of such issues, they have very little to gain from abandoning their party instead of trying to 'fix' it from the inside and turn it back into a party that represents what they actually want. It's not like could ever be happy in a party that contains people like you shrieking at them for how wrong they are every minute of the damn day.

So what you want them to do, presumably, is to take their chunk of their own party and split- form a third party. The thing is, that reduces them to complete political impotence, which you may think is great, but they don't think is great because they're not complete morons.

So it really should not be a surprise, that there are reasonably intelligent, committed people who have different priorities, different opinions about economics or moral philosophy than you. And that this group of people would rather take a party that more or less pays attention to them and try to fix it by nominating non-fascist non-lunatics (e.g. Kasich and Rubio). Instead of either trying to found their own party that will lose forever, or joining your party that hates their guts and calls them fascist lunatics.

I'm honestly not sure you're willing to face this squarely, because you don't even seem capable of talking about the left edge of the Republican Party without calling them "deluded."
Their leadership certainly does, and the majority of Republican voters are at least willing to tolerate that leadership remaining in power.
Calling them deluded in an internet forum they've all long since been driven away from isn't going to accomplish anything. This is why I keep using the word 'circlejerk.' If you keep upping the ante on how many words for 'stupid' you call Republican voters, in a community Republican voters would have literally zero interest in participating in because of how often they get called 'stupid,' sooner or later you're going to scramble your own brains and sense of perspective.

Remember those fact-free bubbles created by the right wing? The ones where fake news becomes believable and rhetoric about the Bowling Green Massacre sells?

Yeah, we're in very real danger of creating our own such bubble here.

Remember how in the election thread we were jabbering about how Clinton might sweep the nation and take, oh, Arizona and so on? We were that far out of touch with what was actually happening.

Now don't get me wrong, you were talking about the dangers of complacency back then. You were totally right to say that. But the underlying problem that made us vulnerable to complacency and getting trapped in a bubble is still there.

The first step in not getting trapped in such a bubble is to at least comprehend that the other side contains large numbers of decent human beings who are not actual fascists. Have they been conned? Many have. Everyone gets conned now and then. Are they making mistakes? Maybe. But if you're not willing to reach out a hand to the edge of the enemy closest to your position, and at least recognize their basic sanity and value as participants in the political sphere... You're going to be doomed to losing, forever.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Arnold Schwarzenegger for President

Post by The Romulan Republic »

Simon_Jester wrote:"The Republican Party" is such a large collective mass of semi-coordinated structures and groups that calling the whole thing 'fundamentally extremist' is about as accurate as labeling the whole Democratic Party "a bunch of socialists." Or worse yet, "a bunch of communist revolutionaries."
A false equivalency, and one I find extremely irritating, because it reminds me of all those idiots who said "Clinton and Trump are the same" and used that to justify frittering away their vote while democracy is in danger.

No, the two parties are not equivalent, in their goals, methods, or level of extremism (if anything, the Democrats' biggest problem is that they tend to compromise too easily).
Again, if you're going to go down this road, you doom yourself to complete political uselessness, except maybe as a source of donation money. I cannot interact successfully with a thing, if I'm so allergic to it that I can't even talk about it without casting anathemas down on it from my (imaginary) pulpit.
At what point do you stop pretending you can work with a party that, by and large, isn't interested in working with you? At what point do you stop worrying about offending people who do not respect your basic liberties?

I presume that if the Trump declared himself dictator for life of the Fourth Reich, and most of the Republican Party went along with that, that you wouldn't still sing this tune (I hope). So where's the line?

Of course, I actually do see the value in trying to win over those Republicans who don't actually want to destroy Democracy, who are simply acting out of misplaced party loyalty or a belief that they can fix the party. But more value in rallying the support of the younger generations who aren't yet life-long Republicans, and in driving up turnout from our own base.
This is basic common sense. If I can't even recognize that there exist people on the other side who are rational human beings capable of being reached,
I never said such a thing. I said that so-called moderate Republicans are deluding themselves, not that they're all incapable of ever ceasing to delude themselves.

Its funny how often I get criticized for positions that are not my own.
because I'm so busy getting drawn into the endless circlejerk about how 'deluded' and 'extremist' they are... what's the point? Seriously, what is the point of even trying to engage with a political system that contains nothing but Captain Planet villains on the other side of the table?
See above.
"You doubt that the majority..." How generous of you. :roll:
Their are many who certainly do, or might as well. I doubt that its a majority. Pretty straightforward.
To be quite frank, one of the reasons they're willing to do that is because their leaders at least listen to them about political issues and don't automatically dismiss them and tell them they're wrong and dumb about literally everything.

Tell me, is there a single issue you'd be prepared to compromise with moderate Republicans on? How many? Because if there aren't a fair number of such issues, they have very little to gain from abandoning their party instead of trying to 'fix' it from the inside and turn it back into a party that represents what they actually want. It's not like could ever be happy in a party that contains people like you shrieking at them for how wrong they are every minute of the damn day.
:roll:

Oh good, more of Simon_Jester tilting at the straw TRR in his head.

Of course their are issues where I'm prepared to compromise. Just not on basic tenants of democratic government, the rule of law, and legal equality.

Off the top of my head:

Abortion (though in that case its less compromise as that my own views on the issue, as we previously discussed, are somewhat ambiguous). I would not support outright making it illegal, though.

Gun control. I'm actually fairly moderate on this one myself these days.

Taxation.

Note, however, that "compromise" requires give and take. Whereas the Republican idea of "compromise" of late seems to largely be "give us everything we want, and we'll still complain about how partisan the Democrats are". When that is your opponent's idea of compromise, compromise becomes another word for capitulation.

Why is it always the Democrats who must (and do) compromise?
So what you want them to do, presumably, is to take their chunk of their own party and split- form a third party. The thing is, that reduces them to complete political impotence, which you may think is great, but they don't think is great because they're not complete morons.
See above.

And no, my goal is not an effective one party state. My goal is a sane, functional opposition that is not seeking to become effectively a one-party state itself.
So it really should not be a surprise, that there are reasonably intelligent, committed people who have different priorities, different opinions about economics or moral philosophy than you. And that this group of people would rather take a party that more or less pays attention to them and try to fix it by nominating non-fascist non-lunatics (e.g. Kasich and Rubio). Instead of either trying to found their own party that will lose forever, or joining your party that hates their guts and calls them fascist lunatics.

I'm honestly not sure you're willing to face this squarely, because you don't even seem capable of talking about the left edge of the Republican Party without calling them "deluded."
And I find your assessment of my position inaccurate.
Calling them deluded in an internet forum they've all long since been driven away from isn't going to accomplish anything. This is why I keep using the word 'circlejerk.' If you keep upping the ante on how many words for 'stupid' you call Republican voters, in a community Republican voters would have literally zero interest in participating in because of how often they get called 'stupid,' sooner or later you're going to scramble your own brains and sense of perspective.

Remember those fact-free bubbles created by the right wing? The ones where fake news becomes believable and rhetoric about the Bowling Green Massacre sells?

Yeah, we're in very real danger of creating our own such bubble here.
Again with the false equivalency.
Remember how in the election thread we were jabbering about how Clinton might sweep the nation and take, oh, Arizona and so on? We were that far out of touch with what was actually happening.
You know that practically all the professional pollsters were saying similar things and points during the race?
Now don't get me wrong, you were talking about the dangers of complacency back then. You were totally right to say that. But the underlying problem that made us vulnerable to complacency and getting trapped in a bubble is still there.
Yeah, I remember warning voters not to take a Clinton win for granted and stay home or vote third party on election day because they thought she had it in the bag.

Who knew?
The first step in not getting trapped in such a bubble is to at least comprehend that the other side contains large numbers of decent human beings who are not actual fascists. Have they been conned? Many have. Everyone gets conned now and then. Are they making mistakes? Maybe. But if you're not willing to reach out a hand to the edge of the enemy closest to your position, and at least recognize their basic sanity and value as participants in the political sphere... You're going to be doomed to losing, forever.
And again, I am not saying they're all believers in a fascist doctrine. But they are willing to tolerate a fascistic leadership and platform.

If that changes, I daresay we'll have a lot more common ground.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Arnold Schwarzenegger for President

Post by Simon_Jester »

The Romulan Republic wrote:
Simon_Jester wrote:"The Republican Party" is such a large collective mass of semi-coordinated structures and groups that calling the whole thing 'fundamentally extremist' is about as accurate as labeling the whole Democratic Party "a bunch of socialists." Or worse yet, "a bunch of communist revolutionaries."
A false equivalency, and one I find extremely irritating, because it reminds me of all those idiots who said "Clinton and Trump are the same" and used that to justify frittering away their vote while democracy is in danger.

No, the two parties are not equivalent, in their goals, methods, or level of extremism (if anything, the Democrats' biggest problem is that they tend to compromise too easily).
:banghead:

I am not trying to tell you the two parties are equivalent.

I am trying to tell you the two parties are both very large. They cannot be correctly modeled as united blocs. They are alliances or coalitions of many factions. If you try to 'summarize' the massive, sprawling alliance that is the Republican Party as "they're fundamentally extremist," your summary is inaccurate, you are glossing over a huge amount of very relevant detail, and you are making yourself a profoundly counterproductive force on the American political stage.

Because you can't break up OR change the course of a coalition you can't even analyze.
Again, if you're going to go down this road, you doom yourself to complete political uselessness, except maybe as a source of donation money. I cannot interact successfully with a thing, if I'm so allergic to it that I can't even talk about it without casting anathemas down on it from my (imaginary) pulpit.
At what point do you stop pretending you can work with a party that, by and large, isn't interested in working with you? At what point do you stop worrying about offending people who do not respect your basic liberties?

I presume that if the Trump declared himself dictator for life of the Fourth Reich, and most of the Republican Party went along with that, that you wouldn't still sing this tune (I hope). So where's the line?
You are asking the wrong question.

I'm not talking about "working with" a party. I'm talking about "interacting with."

Do you understand the difference?

Hint: a jeweler "interacts with" rough gemstones by splitting them along planes of cleavage, into shapes that suit their purposes. But to do this, they must first perceive the planes of cleavage, then they must equip themselves with tools that enable them to affect the planes of cleavage.

A jeweler who looks at a rough gemstone and says "it's fundamentally a solid rock" has a picture of the gemstone that is neither accurate nor useful. A jeweler who refuses to pick up appropriate tools because he finds the so-called 'solid rocks' repulsive will never succeed in splitting the gemstone.

There is a very good analogy to the reality of modern day American politics.
Of course, I actually do see the value in trying to win over those Republicans who don't actually want to destroy Democracy, who are simply acting out of misplaced party loyalty or a belief that they can fix the party. But more value in rallying the support of the younger generations who aren't yet life-long Republicans, and in driving up turnout from our own base.
Very well!

But I should warn you, your choice of language and mindset in approaching this task makes the task needlessly difficult for you. Moreover, it makes it that little bit more difficult for everybody else, too...
This is basic common sense. If I can't even recognize that there exist people on the other side who are rational human beings capable of being reached,
I never said such a thing. I said that so-called moderate Republicans are deluding themselves, not that they're all incapable of ever ceasing to delude themselves.

Its funny how often I get criticized for positions that are not my own.
That's because you have a knack for describing 'moderate' positions in such uncompromising tones, with such persistent negativity towards those who disagree, that your moderate positions are easily mistaken for extreme ones.

Which is, again, part of why you are making your own tasks needlessly difficult.

When you describe people as "delusional" rather than as "trying to fix a party that honors their objectives but uses disagreeable tactics," for instance. Your choice of wording signals certain things to readers.

In particular, it signals a lack of willingness to understand their motives or consider their point of view as anything other than a debased and inverted version of your point of view.

Now, when directly asked "are you capable of understanding other people's motives," you may reply 'yes,' but then you circle right back to describing their motives in terms that reduce to 'they're crazy' or 'they're stupid' or 'they're evil.'

What am I supposed to think when I see you doing that over and over?
"You doubt that the majority..." How generous of you. :roll:
Their are many who certainly do, or might as well. I doubt that its a majority. Pretty straightforward.
If you're going to attribute the desire to 'wreck democracy' or some such to a large minority of Republicans, I would like to know how large you think this minority is, and what you think 'wreck democracy' means.

I'd also like some polling information to support your conclusions, frankly.
To be quite frank, one of the reasons they're willing to do that is because their leaders at least listen to them about political issues and don't automatically dismiss them and tell them they're wrong and dumb about literally everything.

Tell me, is there a single issue you'd be prepared to compromise with moderate Republicans on? How many? Because if there aren't a fair number of such issues, they have very little to gain from abandoning their party instead of trying to 'fix' it from the inside and turn it back into a party that represents what they actually want. It's not like could ever be happy in a party that contains people like you shrieking at them for how wrong they are every minute of the damn day.
:roll:

Oh good, more of Simon_Jester tilting at the straw TRR in his head.

Of course their are issues where I'm prepared to compromise. Just not on basic tenants of democratic government, the rule of law, and legal equality.
Okay, then talk like it. Lead with your ability to clearly understand what other people do, your ability to describe their motives in terms other than "they're stupidevilcrazy," and your willingness to make tradeoffs to reach out to people who don't want all the same things that you want.

Don't wait to do it until someone mistakes your viewpoint for extremism, due to your choice of words in your opening remarks.
Off the top of my head:

Abortion (though in that case its less compromise as that my own views on the issue, as we previously discussed, are somewhat ambiguous). I would not support outright making it illegal, though.

Gun control. I'm actually fairly moderate on this one myself these days.

Taxation.

Note, however, that "compromise" requires give and take. Whereas the Republican idea of "compromise" of late seems to largely be "give us everything we want, and we'll still complain about how partisan the Democrats are". When that is your opponent's idea of compromise, compromise becomes another word for capitulation.

Why is it always the Democrats who must (and do) compromise?
What do the words 'the Republican' in "the Republican idea" even mean to you?

Remember my comment about jewelers and planes of cleavage. If you model the Republican Party as a solid rock, you will be unable to accomplish anything useful in politics, ever, except by donating money to someone else with the capacity to see the situation more clearly.
So what you want them to do, presumably, is to take their chunk of their own party and split- form a third party. The thing is, that reduces them to complete political impotence, which you may think is great, but they don't think is great because they're not complete morons.
See above.

And no, my goal is not an effective one party state. My goal is a sane, functional opposition that is not seeking to become effectively a one-party state itself.
Well hell, I'd honestly consider a split Republican party pretty awesome right now, I'm surprised if you wouldn't. I was kind of hoping it'd happen in this election cycle, even. But Republicans collectively decided they feared having their agenda fall apartfor the foreseeable future a lot more than they feared the bad side of Trump.

I don't even consider "you'd like it if the Republican Party split up" to be an accusation, TRR.
So it really should not be a surprise, that there are reasonably intelligent, committed people who have different priorities, different opinions about economics or moral philosophy than you. And that this group of people would rather take a party that more or less pays attention to them and try to fix it by nominating non-fascist non-lunatics (e.g. Kasich and Rubio). Instead of either trying to found their own party that will lose forever, or joining your party that hates their guts and calls them fascist lunatics.

I'm honestly not sure you're willing to face this squarely, because you don't even seem capable of talking about the left edge of the Republican Party without calling them "deluded."
And I find your assessment of my position inaccurate.
Then prove me wrong by not doing the same thing over and over.

Lead with your ability to comprehend others and clearly perceive the details of what is going on. Not with rhetoric about how "the other guys" are a uniform evil bloc where the best you can say about anyone anywhere near that big evil bloc is that they are "deluded."
Calling them deluded in an internet forum they've all long since been driven away from isn't going to accomplish anything. This is why I keep using the word 'circlejerk.' If you keep upping the ante on how many words for 'stupid' you call Republican voters, in a community Republican voters would have literally zero interest in participating in because of how often they get called 'stupid,' sooner or later you're going to scramble your own brains and sense of perspective.

Remember those fact-free bubbles created by the right wing? The ones where fake news becomes believable and rhetoric about the Bowling Green Massacre sells?

Yeah, we're in very real danger of creating our own such bubble here.
Again with the false equivalency.
WHAT false equivalency? I'm pointing out that there is a specific process that causes small communities of like-minded political enthusiasts to become dysfunctional and isolate themselves from the facts. We've already seen it happen to the right in many separate cases, and to the left in some cases. It's not about the right and left being equally good or bad for crying out loud!

It's like, if you've seen a bunch of people get sick from lead poisoning, don't eat paint chips. That's not a 'false equivalency.' Saying "but MY paint chips are tasty!" or "We're way better than those lead-poisoned idiots over there!" is not a valid counterargument. Lead poisoning affects the righteous and the wicked alike.

Likewise, groupthink affects everyone of ALL political stripes, from the Third Reich to the Supreme Soviet.
Remember how in the election thread we were jabbering about how Clinton might sweep the nation and take, oh, Arizona and so on? We were that far out of touch with what was actually happening.
You know that practically all the professional pollsters were saying similar things and points during the race?
Why yes. And a lot of articles were written after the election going "wow, we were missing some very important things. Our picture of the situation was inaccurate. I wonder what we did wrong?"

When you make a prediction, and it fails, the correct response is always to analyze the reason the prediction was made, correct any failures in the thought process, and go on.

If the thought process does not change, the errors will be repeated in the future. If we are in such a rush to say people are doing what they do because they are crazyevilstupid-deluded, that we lead with that when we talk among ourselves... It's going to distort our thinking. It's going to be very noticeable to people we might otherwise persuade to our way of thinking.

...

Like... Imagine someone trying to convince you that you need to drastically change your political views and support a different candidate. They would have to present evidence.

As a hypothetical example, imagine someone trying to convince you that our existing border controls are much too weak to keep terrorists out. They would have to present very good evidence. Why would the evidence have to be so strong? Because you have observed so many people speaking hatefully or cluelessly about the 'terrorist threat' that they think comes from the borders.

Evidence you consider weak would not be enough to convince you, because you know damn well that there are a lot of biased people who are parroting or even creating fake 'evidence,' or misinterpreting real evidence, to support this conclusion. You are not going to want to join such groups, and their attempts to persuade you will be useless.

It would take extremely powerful evidence for you (say, eleven jillion terrorist attacks in a short time, all committed by recent immigrants) to even consider changing your views. It would certainly take extremely powerful evidence to convince me. My views on this matter are, for lack of a better term, fortified.

And the reason they are so fortified is because I know that the other side contains a lot of people who don't understand me, don't respect my opinions, and don't respect things I know to be true. I'd be a fool to listen to people who think and behave that way regarding me.

...

People on the other side have that same defense mechanism. Their political views are fortified in the same way mine are, but with the guns facing the other way. Because... surprise! They are well aware that the other side contains a lot of people who don't understand them and don't even try to, who don't respect their opinions, and who don't respect things they know to be true. And even people who might be amenable to persuasion on the issues themselves, become impossible to persuade when the opposition behaves that way.

And again, this isn't about equivalency. It's basic human psychology. People do not listen to people they don't think will listen to them in turn.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Arnold Schwarzenegger for President

Post by The Romulan Republic »

Rather than trying to go through that whole post and reply line by line, I'll just say this, and I hope it covers the key points:

I am not blind to the need to reach out to ones' political opponents, and I don't think every Republican is a mini-Trump or something, though at the same time, I don't think you can deny that a large number of Republicans favour policies, like strict voter ID laws, that are a direct threat to democracy, or that Trump is increasingly showing signs of being an authoritarian strong man, including hostility to the press and judiciary and unilaterally violating the Constitution to persecute minorities.

That said... why is it always the Democrats who have to compromise and respect the other side? Because after the last decade or so, telling me "You need to comprise", as a Democrat, sounds a lot like "You need to keep taking it up the ass and pretending you like it." Compromise is a two-way street. Otherwise, again, its just another name for capitulation.

If Republicans want respect, they should respect others. If they want compromise, they should be willing to compromise. I see precious little of either from the current Republican Party, and while their are exceptions, they are either silent, or drowned out. If one chooses to remain part of an organization that behaves in such a manner, what am I supposed to think?

As to the subject of the Republican Party breaking up, of course I want it to happen, because the party is utterly corrupt and needs to go. But my objection is more that I don't want it simply so that the other side's votes are divided and we win. I want the Republican Party to collapse so that its worst elements can be relegated to the fringe, and a better party can emerge in its place.

I had hoped that more Republicans might take a stand against Trump, or that a catastrophic loss might precipitate such a shift. But the overwhelming majority of the party ultimately toed the line (if often grudgingly) and voted for the Orange Rapist, or at least did not openly stand against him, proving the Republican Party even more craven and broken than I thought. And now we're all paying the price.

For how long should I keep extending the benefit of the doubt?
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Arnold Schwarzenegger for President

Post by The Romulan Republic »

I mean, it would be wonderful if the Republican Party could be reformed. I just don't see it as likely to happen in the foreseeable future, so on the whole, I think it would be better for any remaining Republicans who do support principles of democracy, equality, and the rule of law to stop fooling themselves and look elsewhere.

I certainly wouldn't hold any real grudge against any who do so.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28723
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Re: Arnold Schwarzenegger for President

Post by Broomstick »

Gandalf wrote:
Broomstick wrote:
Gandalf wrote:A problem with President Terminator is that his skin will eventually rot away. Then you need to hire someone to keep POTUS shiny and smudge free.
We really need to do a "Top Ten Reasons a T-800 Terminator Would Make a Better President Than Trump"

Also, Terminator Genysis established that while several decades will result in the aging of a T-800 skin, and graying of the hair, their fleshy integument won't necessarily "rot away". It's a cyborg, not a zombie.
I did not see that one. I was going off the first film, where he's slowly rotting throughout the piece.
Having recently re-watched the entire film franchise (still have to watch the TV program) he wasn't so much rotting during the first film as sustaining lots of damage. The events of the film take place over a very short time frame, flesh doesn't rot that fast in real life, unless you're in a tropical rain forest (and maybe not even then).

For a continuation of this delightful side track go here.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
User avatar
Joun_Lord
Jedi Master
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2014-09-27 01:40am
Location: West by Golly Virginia

Re: Arnold Schwarzenegger for President

Post by Joun_Lord »

The Romulan Republic wrote:I mean, it would be wonderful if the Republican Party could be reformed. I just don't see it as likely to happen in the foreseeable future, so on the whole, I think it would be better for any remaining Republicans who do support principles of democracy, equality, and the rule of law to stop fooling themselves and look elsewhere.

I certainly wouldn't hold any real grudge against any who do so.
The problem with that is where else do they look?

While I would not consider myself a Republican I do have some issues in common like gun control. If I was a single issue voter for me it'd be Republican or nothing to represent my right to own penis compensating extended clip anti-jetliner teflon coated evil black guns with super deadly barrel shrouds. The Democratic party is no party for me, at best some members of the party are not completely hostile towards gun ownership but others are completely hostile. I only have any support for the Dems because of other issues like humane immigration reform, LBGT rights, and not being the party of Donald Trump, which is a pretty damn important issue, if it was just guns for me I'd not vote mostly and the importance of guns is why I consider myself more of dirty middle of the road unable to make up his mind independent.

Thats just one thing. For actual Republicans with the buttons and everything they might have multiple issues like immigration, abortion, leaded gasoline, and military spending that they feel the Democrats do not fit with them on. Its either the Dems or Reps and thats about it. Oh sure, the Green Party and the Libertarian party exist.....allegedly but voting for them is about as useful as my incredible ability to metaphorically insert my foot into my mouth and taste my unfortunately not metaphorical athletes foot. If ever I feel the need to get people to leave my house I take off my boots and they are gone so fast I'd swear I could see a cartoon outline. Also the Libertarian party can eat a sloppy wet dick for their hatred of poor people and national parks and the Green party can have sloppy seconds for their hate-on for anything nuclear.

Becoming Dems though, thats just out of the question for most. Most socially liberal sort like yours truly have already fucked off from the Republican party mostly to the sickly embrace of the Dems. Those remaining are not so fly by night and willing to sacrifice some values for others. Sitting things out is out of the question too, so don't question it. If they want reform and their own pet issues pushed forward they need to stay in the game just like how the LGBT community stayed with the Dems to change them from Republican lite on LGBT issues to a party that finally ain't complete bags of dicks to the LGBT.

Reform comes from people actually working at it, not abandoning ship. And I think if nothing else we agree on we can agree the Republican party needs reformed yesterday (or more precisely several months ago).
User avatar
Lord Revan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 12211
Joined: 2004-05-20 02:23pm
Location: Zone:classified

Re: Arnold Schwarzenegger for President

Post by Lord Revan »

If you ask me US should break the current main parties into 2 or more smaller parties (per current party that) so that you had 3-4 major parties and reasonble number of medium sized parties so you wouldn't end up with parties that are total clusterfucks as they're no ideological consistency and as far as I know the GOP isn't ideologically consistent rather them being consistent on "do intentionally what's worst for USA" like some people here like to imply.
I may be an idiot, but I'm a tolerated idiot
"I think you completely missed the point of sigs. They're supposed to be completely homegrown in the fertile hydroponics lab of your mind, dried in your closet, rolled, and smoked...
Oh wait, that's marijuana..."Einhander Sn0m4n
User avatar
Joun_Lord
Jedi Master
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2014-09-27 01:40am
Location: West by Golly Virginia

Re: Arnold Schwarzenegger for President

Post by Joun_Lord »

I wouldn't be opposed to it at all, actually think it'd be great. There are two things I envy the Europeans and one is the the ability to have multiple political parties and the other is the whole of Belgium because Belgium is entirely awesome.

The fact they have to build coalitions and its not a winner takes all sounds atleast to a laymen such as myself far better for more people then the winner takes all approach. I know there is problems with a multi party system like occasionally having to work with far right or far left or outright racists and fascists but still sounds superior to a two party system.

Of course we Americans will probably stick with two parties until the seas dry up and the sun goes dark. Its one of those strange American quirks the rest of the world laughs at us about with good reason like our almost terror at showing nipples.
Post Reply