So we agree that most of the Democratic party

No. I just said you *might* be right had you said 'majority', but I'm not sure of that.

and Hillary and Bernie in particular, hold nut job views. Which makes them unelectable if your Carson reasoning is taken into account.

Do you have any *quotes* of Hillary or Bernie referring to The Patriarchy(tm) as a credible entity? You have a serious shot at influencing my opinions here, as I've not bothered investigating this particular issue in regards to the election. My hunch is that you *don't* have any quotes, but heck, maybe you do. It's a pretty wide-spread delusion, sadly. If you can dig up an actual quote of either one of them endorsing the concept of The Patriarchy, I'll concede that they hold a nutty view. (But no, not all nutty views are equally nutty. Creationism and global warming denialism are specifically and aggressively anti-science views. Patriarchy theory is closer to something like Marxism, which is nutty but not specifically anti-science. The problem with being anti-science is that you're not just deluded, you're *out of touch* with reality.)

Do you also agree that BLM is a nut job movement, or do you think those nut jobs are legit?

I know little about BLM, but I'm very reluctant to call any movement based solely on a hashtag much of anything, one way or the other, especially since #GamerGate. A hashtag allows literally anyone to say anything 'in the name of' the hashtag. I do know that at least *some* people who've self-identified with BLM are pretty nutty, but I hesitate to generalize to *all* people who do so.

Edited 2/17/2016 08:31:19

I haven't got round to reading the 6th and 7th pages but this made me laugh...

I would wager that very likely Carson, Fiorina, Jindal, and Rand Paul (being ideologically 'diverse') would have been worse than W., but probably better than Palin. Next, somewhat less confidently, I suspect Cruz would be slightly better than W. (only because W. was so bad), but worse than Jeb or Trump, and so thus still somewhat "Palin-esque". And finally, even less confidently, I would guess that Rubio would be better than Trump, and perhaps better than Jeb, but FAR far below Clinton or Sanders (or Obama for that matter).

Hypothetically comparing past president's and current candidates' likely performance with vague and arbitrary terms like 'better' or 'worse' like he was talking about his favourite numbers, not to mention they have very different appeals and policies in a different time. All of this topped up by the fact its coming from the perspective of a Canadian citizen.

I want more!

Edited 2/17/2016 08:57:45

Hypothetically comparing past president's and current candidates' likely performance with vague and arbitrary terms like 'better' or 'worse' like he was talking about his favourite numbers, not to mention they have very different appeals and policies in a different time. All of this topped up by the fact its coming from the perspective of a Canadian citizen.

I want more!

Never played fantasy football or anything like that?

I mean that it only takes one view of Palin's interviews to see her for what she is. Here, I'll dig one up for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZVh_u5RyiU

So she was unprepared for a lot of those questions in 2008. She didn't expect to be nominated VP candidate so she hadn't had enough time to prepare good answers. Doesn't make her a nut job. Hillary has been preparing for the presidency for 16 years now, and she's still not good enough. Her only selling arguments are that she is the spouse of a popular former president and that she has a vagina.

Also worthy of noting is that Palin says she believes in climate change. She just isn't sure if it's man-made.

Do you have any *quotes* of Hillary or Bernie referring to The Patriarchy(tm) as a credible entity? You have a serious shot at influencing my opinions here

It seems that the candidates are too careful to make such blunders as to openly claim that The Patriarchy is a thing. However, they use rhetoric that definitely points to that direction. And the same is true for Obama, btw.

- Hillary uses feminist nut jobs like Madeleine 'special place in hell' Albright (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/06/madeleine-albright-campaigns-for-hillary-clinton) and Gloria 'Patriarchy' Steinem (http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/katie-yoder/2015/11/04/gloria-steinem-blames-planned-parenthood-attack-racism) in her campaign rallies.

- She refutes Bernie's claims of being part of the establishment by saying that as a woman, she cannot be.

- Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama each believe in both the college rape culture and in the wage gap myth. That pretty much implies they believe in the invisible power of The Patriarchy to keep women down without anybody being able to point out how.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-campus-rape_us_5695431ee4b086bc1cd5616e

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WWzELjRfWA (funnily enogh, when pointed out that the White House has the same earnings gap as the US in general, Obama declined to comment)

- Obama has even made legislation to combat the supposed campus rape culture with a Dear Colleague Letter which states that universities, which hold their own extrajudicial courts that can expel students accused of rape, should lower the standard of evidence such that the defendant must prove his innocence rather than the accuser having to prove guilt.

Overall, whether or not Sanders, Clinton or Obama genuinely believe in The Patriarchy, they heavily pander to lobby groups that do. They will make according legislation if elected into office.

Also Michelle Obama wants to Ban 'Bossy': http://www.infowars.com/michelle-obama-supports-campaign-to-ban-sexist-words/

I know little about BLM, but I'm very reluctant to call any movement based solely on a hashtag much of anything, one way or the other, especially since #GamerGate. A hashtag allows literally anyone to say anything 'in the name of' the hashtag. I do know that at least *some* people who've self-identified with BLM are pretty nutty, but I hesitate to generalize to *all* people who do so.

BLM is led by nut jobs and fraudsters. Here's some:

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/14/black-lives-matter-split-as-shaun-king-melts-down-on-twitter/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/black-lives-matter-activist-shaun-king-white-article-1.2330658
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/21/obama-defends-black-lives-matter-sometimes-progress-little-uncomfortable/

They have stated that the Paris terror attacks received too much attention and 'stole' it from BLM. (#FuckParis)

I will concede that not every member of BLM is a nut job. Just like not every member of the Nazi party or the KKK is a nut job. That said, their leadership is full of them and the leadership defines the movement.

Wct: you still haven't given me anything substantial. You are making yourself look like an ass.

You still haven't contributed anything to the conversation. I feel no obligation to contribute anything to you. Deal with it.

That's your choice; I'm just informing you that you look like an ass.

And he's informing you you look like a petulant child

Also, did somebody seriously say populists are republicans? top lel

Also, did somebody seriously say populists are republicans? top lel

Sigh....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_populism#France

List of Modern Day Right-Wing Populist Movements:
1. Austrian Freedom Party
2. Flemish Vlaams Belang
3. Denmark's Danish People's Party
4. France's Front National
5. Germany's PEGIDA
6. Greece's Golden Dawn
7. Italy's Lega Nord
8. Netherland's Party for Freedom
9. Switzerland's Swiss People's Party
10. America's Tea Party

Yins need some smooth jazz to calm down in this thread.

@Jai, I think BYG Jacob was talking about the classic definition of populist movements, which are almost always on the left.

Classical Populism: "Therefore, populism espouses government by the people as a whole (that is to say, the masses). This is in contrast to aristocracy, synarchy or plutocracy, each of which is an ideology that espouse government by a small, privileged group above the masses."

That sounds like the Tea Party. Populism is a third way movement that crosses ideological boundaries.

Hmm.. I wonder how many people on this thread can actually vote?

Populism itself leans neither way and can be claimed by no political leaning. There are people that put their own version of populism, like FDR, but both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are populist candidates.

And platinum, I can vote.

Diversity in the GOP Presidential Race:
0 Women
1 African American = Ben Carson
2 Latinos = Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio
0 Indian-American
3 Candidate with at least 1 immigrant parent - Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump,
0 Jewish

Total GOP Diversity = 3

Diversity in the Democratic Presidential Race:

1 Women = Hillary Clinton
0 African Americans
0 Latinos
0 Indian-Americans
0 Candidates with at least 1 immigrant parent
1 Jewish = Bernie Sanders

Total Democratic Diversity = 2

Ive taken out the people no longer in the presidential race

lets look at it another way: amount of people currently in the democratic race: 2, democratic diversity:2, percentage: 100% diversity
amount of people in the republican presidential race:6, republican diversity:3 percentage:50%

end result: democratic diversity=100%
republican diversity=50%

The republicans have more people with more ethnic backgrounds, so they are more diverse. That's like saying a school with 40 whites kids, 10 Hispanics , 10 Blacks ,10 Muslims and 10 East Asians is less diverse than the school with 40 blacks and 40 Hispanics.