Jump to content

Nulla Lex Ink.

Member
  • Content Count

    61
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

66 Cool Kid

About Nulla Lex Ink.

  • Rank
    Young Gun

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    : E-Arth
  • Interests
    Writing, movies, TV, music, video games, reading and food.

Recent Profile Visitors

329 profile views
  1. I watched his short film "Food" recently, after finding the middle segment while looking for some good short films on Youtube. Quite a trip, favorite was probably the one that I initially saw. Those parts where the face morphs as they eat is creepy as all get out. Robert Morgan's another good stop motion animator, first film of his I saw was Bobby Yeah, I think. Dunno what it was trying to say but I enjoyed it for the imagery. Lee Hardcastle is pretty great as well.
  2. Total fluke both times, but still Seriously? Even after all these allegations? Admittedly all the ones out so far have been kinda "mountain out of mole hill" situations (the ones I've heard of and bothered to read up on anyways), but still. I would have thought they would show what a paper tiger he is and scare some folks off the prospect of him being the nominee. Meh, whatever. Prolly won't be him. Once the debates start (assuming he even runs) a lot of the hype for him will be lost, I believe. On that note, looks like at least two more folks are gonna be jumping into the ring. Eric Swalwell and Michael Bennet. I also think that Gravel is officially announcing soon (he's said he'll drop out after the debates though), and I'd be shocked if Buttigieg backs out now. Though at the same time, not really, since I've been thinking since the beginning he's just doing this to boost his name recognition for a senate or governor run. Looks like the amount might crack 20 after all. I wonder who all will qualify for the debates, and who will end up on what stage. Honestly, I doubt John Delaney will be on either stage. He's been running since the middle of 2017 and I've hardly heard about him anywhere. I'd also be surprised if Mike Gravel managed to make it on there, even with the poll threshold being as low as 1%. The party has said that the two debate stages will be random and not based on polling numbers. I highly doubt that's legit, but it'd be funny to see someone like Andrew Yang debating with all these big names and frontrunners, while someone like Biden is lumped in with all the fringe candidates. God, I can't wait for this circus to begin. It's gonna be a heck of a ride.
  3. I... I would love this. Honestly. I want to hear someone say what a good president he was just because the only thing they know about him is that its been speculated he was gay. I want them to spout off about how great/progressive our country was back then to elect such a man. Then I wanna watch them do a bunch of mental gymnastics when they're told his presidency more or less caused the civil war, and he's probably one of our most treasonous presidents (which says a lot more than it should). But hey, they might like that too. I mean, they were pretty mad when the report said Trump didn't commit treason, so maybe Buchanan is their guy after all.
  4. His first name is Peter, and his last name has "Butt" in it, so it'd only be a matter of time before he'd be called "Peter Butt," (Or "Peter Booty," because of how his name is pronounced) and at that point his candidacy prolly won't be taken serious anymore. Think it's ridiculous? Well, yeah, it is, but lots of things are ridiculous. Doesn't make 'em any less true.
  5. I wish I could tell you this was satire. Truth is, I don't know, but yeah no it probably isn't. Gotta enjoy how the comments section is closed off. No better way to show security in your beliefs than to shut down any potential talk of opposition. I like how one girl says both of her parents are Cambodian immigrants. Imagine spending years getting into the country the legal way, then being told to be okay with others bypassing all of that. Imagine being that cucked.
  6. I could see Trump being disarmed by Bernie's politeness, but I could also see it going the other way. Really it comes down to how the public perceives it and how it's spun by the media. Bernie's politeness could make Trump look like a bumbling moron because he's unsure of how to attack it, but that won't matter if most people are like "Look at that! Trump's flinging mud at him left and right and he's too big a pussy to say anything back! What a coward!" Like I said, nowadays debates are really all about verbally destroying your opponent, and to some people that just means being louder and more intimidating than the other person. I'll admit though, I'm very cynical about the process and what its become. I would definitely love to see those debates though. In 2016 Trump said he was willing to debate Bernie when Hillary refused to do the last debate with him, but then he pulled out at the last second because Bernie wasn't going to be the nominee, and I've always wondered how those would go down. Would be entertaining if nothing else. Nothing crazy or idiotic from the 2008 debates come to mind off the top of my head (admittedly its been awhile since I watched those debates), but I do remember he made some really weird campaign ads, such as the one below.
  7. I agree that his appeal is overrated, but I wouldn't really compare him to McGovern. McGovern's big problem wasn't overrated appeal, it was that he was the architect of the primary system as we know it, where the voters decide who the nominees are and not the party bosses at the convention. This took a large chunk of power away from the party leaders and made them mad enough to, at best, give him lukewarm support if any at all, or at worst throw their support behind Nixon. Then those primaries turned out to be very bitter, during which time he was labelled as the "acid, amnesty and abortion" candidate; that label stuck with him through to the general and, coupled with a few other things, caused a lot of the party to be alienated from him. He was also really hurt by his initial running mate's medical records leaking and revealing that he had been treated for depression, which back then made people think he was some kind of nut case; this further hurt his campaign when he said he'd stick by Eagleton, only to ask him to step aside a few days later, and this wasn't very long after the convention either. By this point, it was pretty well known that Nixon was going to be the winner of the election by a wide margin. The only question was how thorough the defeat would be. Anyways, despite the overrated appeal, I still maintain that Bernie's the best shot for the party, at present at least. But I doubt he's able to beat Trump, at best I think he keeps him from breaking 300 EVs again. He brings his own excited base to the field (which is a whole heck of a lot more than the rest of the candidates bring), and he's not so divisive that he'll scare away that bloc who will vote for whoever has a D next to their name (because at this point, a lot of that crowd just wants to vote Trump out and don't care who replaces him, even if it is an old white Jewish man in an era of identity politics), but I don't know if that's enough to actually win the election. He needs to excite the whole Democratic base, not just his own and the young ones. I'm also certain that he'd be hurt during the general election debates, because Sanders is kind of too "polite" of a debater. Thirty years ago that would have been fine, but in the current climate, where debates are all about making your opponent look like an idiot and verbally destroying them? That won't fly, especially against someone like Trump who has more or less mastered that. As a side note, I hope if Mike Gravel decides to run that he qualifies for the debates. That'll make for some grade A entertainment right there. Especially if he ends up on the same stage as Biden and Sanders. It'll be like "Grumpy Old Men" in suits.
  8. Bernie Sanders. A thousand years from now, when the country has fallen and a lot of historical information is somehow lost but KFC still exists for some reason, I want historians to believe Colonel Sanders was president. And also well over a hundred years old when elected.
  9. Bernie Sanders seems the most likely right now, of course that'd be in a fair race, which 2016 (and if we're being honest, many others) shows us just isn't the case, but who knows, they might let him win because they think he'll lose. It probably will not be Joe Biden, since he's so gaffe prone that it doesn't matter how hard the media tries to bury his shady stuff. He's a paper tiger and kinda like Rudy Giuliani in 2008, in that he's very popular until voting actually begins. Sanders has the fact that he came in a respectable second and avoided the stain of defeat by Donald Trump. Fun fact: The nominees in 2008, 2012 and 2016 were all previously runner ups in the primaries; you also saw it happen in 1980-1984 (Reagan), 1988-1992 (Bush) and1996 (Dole). Of course, except Hillary Clinton, all of them have been Republicans, though the Democratic party hasn't had as many second place finishers run, and usually when they do, a controversy sinks them and they do way worse than previously, like Gary Hart in 1988, John Edwards in 2008, and a more minor example in 1992 with Jerry Brown, who actually improved upon his second place performance sixteen years earlier but still lost largely because of big missteps. So who knows, same could happen to Bernie since if we're being honest, he is the man to beat at the moment because he has that cult of personality thing going for him. Kamala Harris or Beto O'Rourke is probably who the Democratic party will ultimately try to prop up as the "Anti-Bernie" candidate (side note: I enjoy how Kamala and Beto show up as being misspelled words as I type this). I'm leaning more toward the latter since the Democratic party, for some reason, has tried to make their campaigns mostly all about identity politics. You'll probably see some other candidates trading the frontrunner status because they are not Bernie and are trying to be propped up by the party even though they don't have a realistic chance of it, like what the Republicans did in 2012 when they didn't want Mitt Romney to win, but I feel like one of those two will be the one who plays the part. Because of the crowded field, I also get the feeling that you'll see a few candidates get enough support to be accused of being spoilers to whoever loses, though I'm doubtful any truly will be. Won't stop the accusations though. All that being said, it's kinda too early in the primary season to tell. You'll see a lot of candidates gain momentum only to lose it because, much as I hate to say it, the public has a short attention span for the most part. It's like, "Yeah, this guy is cool! They can stop the frontrunner! There's no such thing as inevitability!" and then a couple of weeks later it will be, "Man, I wish someone could come along and stop the frontrunner. I mean someone with a real chance, not like *Whoever*, that whole movement was just them being too optimistic." It's also almost assured that dirt will be dug up on all the main contenders right now, it's just a matter of what actually sticks and what kinda dirt is dug up. All I can say for sure is, right now, to me, it looks like Sanders will be the nominee, but that could easily change, partly because he's running in a race held by a party known to cheat and that heavily dislikes him, but mostly because voters are a fickle bunch.
  10. Y'know, the thing I find funniest about all this is the fact that they started this "investigation" to try and make Trump look bad, but now that its cleared him, they've pretty much vindicated him. Now he has another talking point against whoever he runs against in 2020, and he's in the right honestly. It was a waste of time and money, and frankly not that good of a scheme in the first place. Especially stupid was how soon they started the investigation, while likely knowing nothing would be found. If you wanna make a candidate look bad you don't start it three years before the election cycle, you start it when it's close to the election itself. It's called the October Surprise, and it works because voters have a very short attention span. They won't remember something from a year ago or even a month ago, but they will remember last week. Mostly. I'm not saying I approve of that sort of trickery. I don't, but it is standard politics, and it's funny they can't even properly screw someone over at this point. The one time they did was with Bernie Sanders, and they couldn't even keep that a secret. They're just lucky that a lot of their followers were so dumb they listened when they were instructed to be mad that the information got out, as opposed to what the information was. They're in their own way at this point, and it's hilarious. You couldn't write a satire this entertaining. Meanwhile, the Democratic field is still dumb, but continues to amaze me with its growing stupidity. Apparently some folks are trying to draft Mike Gravel of all people, and he's genuinely considering it. It's a movement being pushed by a group of teenagers mostly, who acknowledge that he's not going to win, but want him on the debate stage so he can get his ideas out. The idea is a nice one, but it's unfortunately naive. These days debates aren't so much about the exchange and discussion of ideas, but for convincing undecided voters that your opponent is Satan and ridiculing their stances better than they can yours. It's really all about saying "You're ideas are wrong and you're bad for having them" the loudest, while also saying "My ideas are right, and I'm the only one who means them. Don't listen to these other people, they all suck. Vote for me!" - it's not even really about saying what your ideas are, just that they're better than everyone else's. And of course, all of them will be shouting "I'm not Trump! That means I'm fit to be president!" I'm so looking forward to the primaries. I get the feeling it'll be very damaging and you'll have a lot of folks who refuse to drop out even thought their chances of winning are pretty well zero (there's always one in these crowded races), and they'll only serve to deny everyone else the necessary votes. In turn, that'll make the convention a more chaotic affair. Whoever comes out on top will more likely be crippled by their own party infighting and lose in the general, unless something big happens. Like I said before, they're pretty much in their own way at this point.
  11. Andrew Yang is your guy then. He wants to give reparations just for being alive! Y'know, it's real sad to admit, but I bet he'd get a lot more votes if he just started referring to UBI as "Life Reparations." People would see/hear the buzz word and vote based on that alone.
  12. The Democratic field is hilarious. It says something that Bernie is probably their best chance at beating Trump, and even then he'd likely lose. I also love how they continue to scream that Hillary lost because she was a woman (that was not the reason) and yet they scream that their winning strategy is to nominate a woman again. I mean, with that mentality, they're basically saying "We lost because this candidate was this, so lets run that exact same type of candidate again, but pick a different person!" Make up your mind. Or, y'know, admit that you lost because your candidate was just that terrible. I'm not going to say misogyny or sexism didn't play a part in influencing some people's votes, but I'm skeptical that it was the main factor or had more than a minuscule effect. The "Tom Bradly effect" was in play but not because of her gender, it was because if you even implied you might vote for Trump (or any Republican) you were automatically branded a Neo-Nazi, Woman heating racist scumbag. Yeah, that inspires people to be honest when asked who they'll vote for. I'm perfectly fine with the idea of a woman president some day, in fact as someone who studies presidential elections for fun, I look forward to it in a way. But the current crop isn't very good for the simple fact that they're all so disingenuous. I mean, just from the top two female candidates, one seems to have slept her way to the top and has pulled a total about face with her views just so she has a better chance to be elected president, while the other lied about her heritage to get ahead in life. Sorry, but that doesn't inspire me to get out and vote. None of the candidates do because they're all garbage. Also I'm getting real tired of people comparing O'Rourke to Lincoln. No, they are not similar just because they lost senate races two years before a presidential election they ran in, and the comparison is just plain disingenuous. Things were very different back then. For one thing, senators were not voted for by the people, it was conducted entirely by the legislature, so that's like comparing apples to oranges. Second, Lincoln had a bit more recognition before his senatorial run (he had also run for senate before, in 1854, and lead during the balloting before he dropped out and threw his support to someone else, who ended up winning because of that). In 1856, he came in a respectable second to be the vice presidential candidate for the Republican ticket. That ticket lost, so Lincoln got the notability of being a contender without having the stain of a national defeat; you saw something similar to it happen in '56 and '60 with Kennedy. But even with that fact, Lincoln was still a dark horse candidate. He won the nomination largely because he was the most well known guy who hadn't alienated any factions of the party. Back then they didn't have primaries, what happened instead was that the party leaders would meet at the convention and pick who the public would be voting for. Primaries are a very recent practice in the republic's history, and them actually mattering is even more recent. Anyways, that year the nominee was expected to be William Seward but he failed to get the nomination because he was deemed too radical by some factions, as were several others, though he did lead by a wide margin on the first ballot and a narrow one on the second before most of the delegates shifted their support to Lincoln. Basically, Lincoln was picked because he was the best known candidate who offended the least amount of party factions. You could argue that Beto could play this role between, say, Biden (HAH, a paper tiger if there ever was one) and Sanders, but once again, this wasn't the public voting; it was a group of less than five hundred men deciding, not millions of people. Finally, and probably most importantly, there was more to Lincoln than "I'm not that guy over there." Hating Ted Cruz doesn't make you fit to be president. It can be an advantage but it can't be the only thing to you, as evidenced by the fact that it wasn't enough to beat probably the most hated person in the senate. Still though, I'm looking forward to the election. It'll be hilarious to watch at least... Man, it bums me out that that's what our presidential election process has become. Oh well.
  13. So, not that it hasn't been this way for awhile now, but that just confirms it. We are living in an episode of South Park now.
  14. Impossible! He's doing something AGAINST the president, and why on earth would Russia want to do anything to harm the President of the United States?
×
×
  • Create New...