Random Politics & Religion #00

Is your bold suppose to be what you think I meant to say? Because that is not what I meant to say... I'm fairly certain I said what I meant and that it does make sense. Lets try this.

Someone is lazy if they refuse to understand why something would be considered PC and just assume that it should be clarified because of their laziness.

Also, I hate the internet the nuances of speech are lost in text and while I try adding them people just see what they want and refuse to listen. Which is probably why a lot of people argue with me.
Try adding a hint of sarcasm to pretty much all of my posts and I think you'll understand them a bit better in the future lol..

My eyes roll every time I hear the term PC. Just say what you mean to say and stop obfuscating your thoughts with passive-aggressive speak.

You're right my bad.


I dunno if this is directed at me, but I was joking about it. Personally I am never PC.

I'm just saying in general.

I should have adjusted my very first sentence, and am blaming the wine: I don't see how it would be politically incorrect for you to post the numbers if you had them, and I don't think anyone here would attack your post over it.

171,000 of 3,004,355 is concerning. Especially when you look at that total as a percentage of Iowa's population.

Also indicative that people need to stop talking about politics and start participating in the process.

Think we both had problems with our posts. Oh well, I blame the internet.


Well adding the Republicans its just over 350k. But yeah, I don't disagree.

Can we blame Alex Trebek instead? or perhaps Celine Dion?

Better yet, let's blame Justin Beiber.

Alex Trebek can do no wrong!

Much smaller than I thought.

While I am sure most would agree that such low numbers is more than a tad disturbing, no one really seems to want to tackle the issue of voter apathy, and simply spout the same tired lines of "MORE PEOPLE NEED TO VOTE! (As long as they vote for the guy I like!)"

Something a long those lines, and across the whole political spectrum.

So the question becomes, how do we get more people to vote? Right now, it's been mentioned that there needs to be better candidates, or that they simply need better campaign platforms, and less mud-slinging and personal attacks, and to instead attack their political platforms. The same can be said about political supporters on either side, without first and foremost attacking each other intellectually for choosing a side, and actually have an open discussion, instead of making political discussions a taboo subject, that ultimately devolve into simple poop-flinging and pissing contests over who's *** is bigger.

Nik would disagree. Because Alex is not only a Canadian, he's a Canadian Alien: Kebert Xela

I already pointed out how complicated the Iowa caucus event is for voters, combine the fact that there was a blizzard going on, and its no mystery how every year they have around 20% turnout for each party. People just want to go to their polling station, cast a ballot, and go home, anytime between 8-5. You would think that this year, after they had to resort to coin flips (WTF), they would have some reforms. But I doubt it.

Republicans came out in record numbers and voted for Cruz to win by a record margin. Despite the blizzard. Just saying..

The caucus system is broken even by the low standards of the American election process, and I would love to see it go away. It never will, of course, because that's not how we roll.

Less than 2% of Iowans having such an outsized say in the national Presidential race is absurd beyond belief, before we even get into the details of the process. If someone told the average person the details of the process but phrased it like it was happening elsewhere, they'd be outraged at how such a backwards and closed process had any place in modern democracy.

The GOP caucus is the simpler of the two, you just go and cast a secret ballot after hearing a representative make their final case for each nominee, but lets not act is if 270k is a huge number. This is a nonstory, just because the Dems didn't break a record, doesn't mean they didn't have a large turnout.

The fact that Hillary won on a coin flip tells you a lot...

Not letting political dynasties be able to run would be a good start. Thank god Bush is doing horrible. If I was forced to vote for a BUSH/Clinton Ticket I may have really left the country.

Adding to that actual term limits for congress would help take away the stigma that nothing can change so why even vote.

Apparently Trump accused Cruz of stealing the Iowa win illegally, I don't follow Trump on Twitter so I haven't looked too much into it. I think Cruz has a better chance than Trump.

Yeah, it tells me that we see our elections like they are a football game.

This kind of thinking has been espoused on both sides, and one of the bigger, if not the biggest thing between Dems/Reps, Libs/Cons have ever agreed on.

And whether you love or hate him, it's no secret this was one of the many reasons Obama was voted in the first (and possibly as a reason for the second) time. He wasn't part of a political dynasty. Anyways... let's move past this Obama bit because it will just come full circle jerk with nothing more to add to the discussion at hand.

Now, as for political Dynasties: Legally speaking, anyone considered a US citizen is allowed to run for the presidency (with certain exceptions that would prevent someone from holding office, of course) so what kind of limits do we place, to keep it constitutionally correct? Do we place X amount of years before a family member or relative can run for the same office, or in the same jurisdiction of offices?

Edit: I didn't bother to talk about adding term limits, because it's something that desperately needs to happen. New blood and new thinkers (even if they ultimately come to the same conclusion as the prior appointed members) need to be in there, in order to remain relevant.

Cruz actually had to come out and apologize to Ben Carson for his campaign spreading lies that Carson was dropping out right before the caucus, which is pretty shady.

Not sure if you guys missed it, but I posted a link last page that examines the coin toss thing a little more closely:
http://www.npr.org/2016/02/02/465268206/coin-toss-fact-check-no-coin-flips-did-not-win-iowa-for-hillary-clinton

NPR they aren't bias at all...

Didn't see it. Watching the reported numbers showed that Hillary had a slight lead on Bernie. I see it being Cruz vs. Sanders in the next election.

we were busy arguing whether canada was a real place or not...


certainly you don't mean us

Honest question: does anyone here actually like Cruz? And if so, why? He seems like a thoroughly repulsive human being, and there's nothing I've seen in his policy so far that you can't get from one of the others in the field.

I'm serious, I want to know the appeal. Help me out here.

Sanders is going to win NH and then proceed to lose out. Hillary has huge leads in the upcoming states, Bernie was always a two state guy. Cruz isn't going to win the nomination either, too much of a divider, he won the religious vote in Iowa, but he isn't running well in NH at all, nor SC.

I've asked this about Hillary countless times and other than women voting for her I just don't see the appeal...