If the political views of the posters on CFC:OT

[Gori the Grey]

If the political views of the posters on CFC:OT are a barometer of where politics are headed, where will we be in ten years?

Serious or funny answers welcome

 

[Kyriakos]

They aren't, as i am sure you agree, but if they were:

-nuclear winter is coming.

(which may still be the end result, just not tied to CFC at all).

 

[luiz]

If the political views of the posters on CFC:OT are a barometer of where politics are headed, where will we be in ten years?

 

[Old Hippy]

making statues of Stalin??

 

[classical_hero]

Straight to oblivion.

 

[JollyRoger]

 

[Light Cleric]

Complaining about how Hillary is too conservative after voting for her twice

 

[Phrossack]

Chaos and species extinction ensues due to the fact that 99% of the world's population is now male.

 

[Ironsided]

If CFC did a political compass mean-value calculation I wager we’d collectively end up near the Dalai Lama - at least in the negatives of both axis. I can certainly live more comfortably with a future collective Dalai Lama-light-like hive-mind than for example any major party US politician, Putin or the current Swedish government with its blue tit foreign minister Carl Bildt.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Snarky one-liners and hissy fits for everyone.

 

[Antilogic]

Complaining about how Hillary is too conservative after voting for her twice

The only time someone has to make the least of two evils choice is if they are in a swing state (either an advantage or disadvantage of the system, depending on your perspective).

I've enjoyed being off in ruby red slow-tawking Georgia and true blue Massholia, since I can vote for whoever I want and have a clean conscious.



Also, I'm just saying JR's post was awesome.

 

[Cutlass]

Complaining about how Hillary is too conservative after voting for her twice

Like there's a liberal out there with a ghost of a chance.

 

[Antilogic]

Like there's a liberal out there with a ghost of a chance.

On economics, no.

Although that might be an interesting point of discussion here. Does anyone see the Democratic Party moving in a more economic left-populist direction in, say, 10 years? Or are the leaders going to stay to the social left on wedge issues and be corporate kittens otherwise?

 

[Ironsided]

Snarky one-liners and hissy fits for everyone.

So is that an improvement compared to what we've got, or what?

 

[Antilogic]

I'd say about the same.

 

[Cutlass]

On economics, no.

Although that might be an interesting point of discussion here. Does anyone see the Democratic Party moving in a more economic left-populist direction in, say, 10 years? Or are the leaders going to stay to the social left on wedge issues and be corporate kittens otherwise?

For the most part they are all locked into the big money machine for election/reelection. And that means they can't deviate much at all from the business of America is business line.

 

[Borachio]

Housemaid's Knee.

Oops! Sorry. I meant:

Handmaid's Tail Tale.

 

[Antilogic]

For the most part they are all locked into the big money machine for election/reelection. And that means they can't deviate much at all from the business of America is business line.

At least for the party leadership, I think that's true. However, there are at least a couple who are willing to run against the grain on the state level who may trickle up over the next decade.

I'd like to know whether people think the push for a constitutional amendment on money in politics or at minimum stronger legislation on campaign finance is possible. I get the general feeling this crowd is at minimum skeptical of it. Hell, it was one of the things VRWC and yours truly agreed on.

I'd hypothesize the threat of an Article V convention can be effectively used to force the issue, but it's going to take a lot more than the 5ish states considering it now to do so. A decade may be too soon, but the process could be in motion by then.

 

[Cutlass]

At least for the party leadership, I think that's true. However, there are at least a couple who are willing to run against the grain on the state level who may trickle up over the next decade.

I'd like to know whether people think the push for a constitutional amendment on money in politics or at minimum stronger legislation on campaign finance is possible. I get the general feeling this crowd is at minimum skeptical of it. Hell, it was one of the things VRWC and yours truly agreed on.

I'd hypothesize the threat of an Article V convention can be effectively used to force the issue, but it's going to take a lot more than the 5ish states considering it now to do so. A decade may be too soon, but the process could be in motion by then.

I can't find the article now. But a number of years ago one of the Current US Senators from Connecticut was a fairly new member of the House. And he wrote an op-ed saying how once you get to Washington, no matter what you went there intending to do and be like, everything came down to money. You never met with anyone other than lobbyists and campaign contributors. The whole world of a Washington legislator narrowed down to those with money.