So, the Libertarian party?

Of course you should choose free market capitalism over Democracy. I don't want a despot for life, I just don't want anyone to have so much power that it's important for millions of people to choose them.

Lol if you think taking away the vote is going to lead to anything but despotism. Voting keeps a ton of stuff in check that could otherwise go really badly.

Also there's no such thing as a free market and there never has been. A truly free market would allow collusion and market cornering and all kinds of crap that would basically wind up with one entity having all the power and owning everything. You have to regulate the free market. Even the freest markets in the world have regulation. Now you're into quibbling about how much regulation is too much, and where't the fun in that?

These people are so far gone they literally think a fascist dictatorship which implements far-right economic policies is more free than a democracy. They will vote in a dictator, too, if they get the chance. Believe me--Trump is going to win Alabama by a huge margin, and the politicians that run the state here are very simliar to him in personality and intelligence. It doesn't take much except the right hateful rhetoric to get the absolute worst possible people elected once you get people so far twisted over what is good and bad in government.

Oh yes, choosing between a left authoritarian hawk, and a right authoritarian national socialist is SO much better.

By the time the primaries came to my state of California, Trump was already the presumptive nominee. I had no voice in choosing the Republican nominee.

I will enjoy being able to use my less than 0.1 voting power parity in California in the general election too. Because having only about a dozen states where your vote matters at all is completely normal and fair. I'm actually voting Gary Johnson because voting for Hillary or Trump is throwing my vote away. Trying to get Gary Johnson to 5% (which he is projected to hit) gives me a voting parity of 1 (my vote matters as much as any other vote), so there's that at least.

It's funny or extremely sad and worrying that so many impressionable young white men have had their world-views shaped entirely by two fictional characters: Ron Swanson, a parody of the lol-tastic libertarians, and Heath Ledger's Joker, an insane murder terrorist.

What is wrong with white america that these are the two biggest influences over their young men?

it's unfair that your neighbors overwhelmingly prefer democratic policies and politicians to your favored republicans? lol

I read that as more of a gripe about the electoral college.

Really? I'd be shocked if I heard it any less than 10-15 times a week in regular conversations. In the northeast it's generally interchangeable with motherf'er.

Those are the guys who think we need to not have seat belt laws and that it's cool to discriminate against black people at your business right?

Do you know what "socially not ******ed" means?

Or even "not ******ed" for that matter

LePage pretty much has the 2020 nomination locked up at this point.

i dunno, NC is still going hard against black people voting, so maybe their entire state legislature will be the nominee

mccrory's political career will probably be over by then so maybe he can land the VP spot

Can't let this go. I have seen this argument from Robert Reich types and I find it straw-manny. When people (everyone but anarchists that is) argue for a "free market" they are already assuming a basic societal structure is in place and are very much quibbling about how much intervention is appropriate to allow or not allow supply and demand to meet in a marketplace. So someone saying "the argument of free market economics is hogwash and should be dismissed because it doesn't exist " to me casually and irresponsibly dismisses the real economic argument that should and needs to take place philosophically and empirically regardless of what the resulting policy conclusion ends up being.

end rant

I'm fine with quibbling about how much structure should be in the market. That's what we should be doing. I'm not fine with alt-right ****tards who want to throw away democracy over some unattainable ideal of the free market.

Outside of maybe the black hole of North Korea I'm pretty sure there's never been an absolutely controlled economy either. It's all quibbling. Of course democracy has never been perfect either and we barely make the cut as is. (Freedom index/Princeton Study)

But, Suzzer, I just saw a guy who looked like you by the park at the end of my block. Was it you?

Over/Under On Republicans Losing The House?

I've been accused of starting too many new threads, so I'll plant this one in an existing thread. (Besides, it's probably more appropriate for this to go here anyway ...)

Under the banner headline "DEM HOUSE TARGETS GROW" the Huffington Post is linking to a New York Times article full of arguments/counterarguments speculating on the question of whether the GOP is in danger of losing the House - as well as the Senate. (The article seems to take it for granted that the Senate is a lost cause for the GOP.) Of course, Donald Trump is the scapegoat for all the nail biting and worry. If Republicans manage to lose control of both the House and the Senate, Mr. Trump will get all (or most) of the blame.

Democrats must harvest a net gain of 30 seats in order for Mrs. Pelosi to wrest the Speakers gavel away from Paul Ryan. That's a tall order, but some Democrats think (hope?) they're within striking distance. So the big question is: Will they do it?

To make this really interesting and test the PPP - Political Prediction Prowess - of all you "in the know" politically sophisticated pundocrats, I'm proposing a contest. (If somebody wants to create a separate poll thread on this question, be my guest.)

Rather than an Over/Under number, maybe we can have a contest where you predict how many House seats [net] the GOP will lose. Since I'm the one proposing this contest, I'll start the ball rolling with my prediction. Following the scientific method of pulling a guess straight out of my a**, I predict Republicans will lose a net of 20 House seats. (When my "prediction" turns out to be true on election night, my avatar will be immediately upgraded to "Political Savant".

EDIT: On second thought, maybe the best way to do this would be for my 20 number to be the O/U line. Participants wishing to venture a guess will take the "Over" if they think (believe) Republicans will lose more than 20 House seats. Those who think the GOP will lose less than 20 House seats will take the "Under".

o/u 3.50

The only aggregator currently modeling the House has it ~+29 Dem.

Nope. I was in Hollywood.

Parodies usually mock someone or something, not portray it in a positive light by an objectively awesome and universally loved character.

am place subtitlu pe romaneste

Which site is that? I've been looking for one that models the House.

You mean like the Colbert Show - Stephen Colbert?