Birds in Hell wrote:I am a resolute constitutional monarchist, LV.
LoathedVermin72 wrote:Wait, really? Why?
Briefly, I think the British monarchy represents a sense of stability, tradition and devotion in a volatile world. It's part of the intrinsic character of Britain and, by extension, Australia.
As the issue comes up regularly in Australian political discussion, I'm also unconvinced that we would gain any practical benefit from becoming a republic (and would lose something invaluable). I like that the British monarchy sits outside of partisan politics, I have no faith that a president chosen either by the Parliament or by the people would do the same.
Ignoring the purposely inflammatory, "Oh, please talk about this tomorrow so I dominate the news cycle" nature of Trump's remarks about Clinton last night (that she wouldn't get 5% of the vote if she were a man)...he's just wrong, isn't he? Someone who's been secretary of state, a senator, well-connected in the political machine, comes from a recognizable political family. Not saying this hypothetical person would win, but they'd certainly garner more than 5% of the vote.
Simple Torture wrote:Ignoring the purposely inflammatory, "Oh, please talk about this tomorrow so I dominate the news cycle" nature of Trump's remarks about Clinton last night (that she wouldn't get 5% of the vote if she were a man)...he's just wrong, isn't he? Someone who's been secretary of state, a senator, well-connected in the political machine, comes from a recognizable political family. Not saying this hypothetical person would win, but they'd certainly garner more than 5% of the vote.
He'd probably be doing better because we wouldn't fixate on his looks, facial expressions, or vocal inflections quite so much.
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
She's not my choice, but Hilary has clearly earned the nomination after last night. Prior to this my big concern was that the bulk of her margin came from states dems would not have in play. I still think Sanders is the better candidate (both in terms of policy and electability), but Clinton won where she had to.
I do still think she's absurdly weak as a presidential candidate, though.
She's a boilerplate candidate. More of the same. Completely unremarkable and unexciting. She won't rock the boat. Nothing will change. We will have four years of business as usual. She's a politician. She's a graham cracker. And her blandness has been amplified immeasurably by running against Bernie.
Birds in Hell wrote:I am a resolute constitutional monarchist, LV.
LoathedVermin72 wrote:Wait, really? Why?
Briefly, I think the British monarchy represents a sense of stability, tradition and devotion in a volatile world. It's part of the intrinsic character of Britain and, by extension, Australia.
As the issue comes up regularly in Australian political discussion, I'm also unconvinced that we would gain any practical benefit from becoming a republic (and would lose something invaluable). I like that the British monarchy sits outside of partisan politics, I have no faith that a president chosen either by the Parliament or by the people would do the same.
I'm guessing you weren't old enough to directly remember Gough getting sacked, but what were your feelings during the 1999 republic referendum?
LoathedVermin72 wrote:She's a boilerplate candidate. More of the same. Completely unremarkable and unexciting. She won't rock the boat. Nothing will change. We will have four years of business as usual. She's a politician. She's a graham cracker. And her blandness has been amplified immeasurably by running against Bernie.
That's still better than getting nuked because Trump decides to call the leader of North Korea a midget cunt.
LoathedVermin72 wrote:She's a boilerplate candidate. More of the same. Completely unremarkable and unexciting. She won't rock the boat. Nothing will change. We will have four years of business as usual. She's a politician. She's a graham cracker. And her blandness has been amplified immeasurably by running against Bernie.
That's still better than getting nuked because Trump decides to call the leader of North Korea a midget cunt.
Oh, I'm certainly not saying she isn't a better candidate than Trump.
WTF? When was the last time someone announced their running mate during the primaries--and while they were running second?
After Losing 5 States To Trump, Cruz Slated To Add Carly Fiorina To 'Ticket'
Although Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) continues to trail Republican frontrunner Donald Trump by hundreds of delegates, the senator is reportedly expected to reveal Wednesday that he's picking former rival Carly Fiorina as his running mate.
Cruz will present Fiorina as a member of his "ticket," anonymous sources told National Review and Politico. The Associated Press also confirmed the news.
New Hampshire's WMUR first reported that Cruz intended to name the former Hewlett-Packard CEO as his vice presidential pick.
NBC News also captured footage of Fiorina arriving in Indianapolis ahead of the "major" 4 p.m. announcement.
The news comes after Trump counted victories Tuesday night in five primary states. According to the New York Times, Cruz has secured 546 delegates to Trump's 953.
Fiorina didn't shy away from attacking Cruz while vying for the Republican nomination, calling it "odd" that he didn't renounce his Canadian citizenship until 2014 as questions swirled about Cruz's eligibility to run for President.
Birds in Hell wrote:I am a resolute constitutional monarchist, LV.
LoathedVermin72 wrote:Wait, really? Why?
Briefly, I think the British monarchy represents a sense of stability, tradition and devotion in a volatile world. It's part of the intrinsic character of Britain and, by extension, Australia.
As the issue comes up regularly in Australian political discussion, I'm also unconvinced that we would gain any practical benefit from becoming a republic (and would lose something invaluable). I like that the British monarchy sits outside of partisan politics, I have no faith that a president chosen either by the Parliament or by the people would do the same.
I'm guessing you weren't old enough to directly remember Gough getting sacked, but what were your feelings during the 1999 republic referendum?
I wasn't born when Gough was sacked and was still in high school at the time of republic referendum. To the extent that I thought about it at all, I recall thinking that you would have to some kind of ignorant troglodyte to vote for retaining the monarchy.
Birds in Hell wrote:I am a resolute constitutional monarchist, LV.
LoathedVermin72 wrote:Wait, really? Why?
Briefly, I think the British monarchy represents a sense of stability, tradition and devotion in a volatile world. It's part of the intrinsic character of Britain and, by extension, Australia.
As the issue comes up regularly in Australian political discussion, I'm also unconvinced that we would gain any practical benefit from becoming a republic (and would lose something invaluable). I like that the British monarchy sits outside of partisan politics, I have no faith that a president chosen either by the Parliament or by the people would do the same.
I'm guessing you weren't old enough to directly remember Gough getting sacked, but what were your feelings during the 1999 republic referendum?
I looked this up on Wikipedia, and holy shit I don't know where to start with it. As a dirty American, sometimes it's easy to forget that other countries have complex political histories. Was this like the Australian Watergate or what?
i don't understand why Fiorina is obsessed with referencing "Donkey-punching" in every speech she gives. It's like, "OK, I get it. That's disgusting. Now let's talk about taxes, please."
All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
