Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
I suppose there are competing ideas, but I would prefer it if politicians cooperate when appropriate. That is kind of required to get things done.
So maybe they should add multi-partisan team building exercises to the debates. I know, you would need more than two 'choices' to actually make that interesting though :P
Because everybody is forced to accept the one-size-fits-all leader who wins the competition, instead of permitting everybody to select their own leader which might not be the same as their neighbors.
-- ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
Cooperation is one of the reasons for coalition government. Unfortunately, the US Constitution is hard-coded for winner-takes-all, so the equilibrium points are two parties or one.
Probably even worse, each issue gets reduced to a scale, and whichever side of the scale your party started on, both parties wind up trying to get to the middle of the Bell Curve where most of the voters are. Essentially impossible to sustain any ideological positions, in contrast to coalition governments where you can gain some degree of power just by being strong on any important issue.
The GOP decided to try to rig the game by moving the right side goalposts. Their idea was to make the middle look closer to their preferred outcome, but they moved the goalposts so far that they wound up in Wonderland. Now Trump is leading the entire party down the rabbit hole.
My "Other" answer was "Substantial discussion of the ACTUAL issues". Of course that is predicated on having a candidate who is not dominating the election with such pageantry as accusations and denials of sexual assault.
Try to imagine that you wanted to ask Trump about why the election is rigged in favor of his churchgoing farmers. I'd wage he has NO idea what the 2nd Tuesday in November thing is all about. Another bit of the Constitution that needs improvement, eh?
-- #1 Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice{5} ≠ (Beer^4 | Speech) and your negative mods prove you are a narrow prick.
Because there is power involved. The main goal in politics is getting that power and staying there. People's interests are secondary unless used as means of getting power, which is why only a select few people crucial to sway for the election victory ever get to see most of their interests met.
Politicians that don't play by those rules end their reign very fast, so even if they really do have the interest of making the world a better place to live in they still have to resort to competing with others in order to remain in power. Sometimes using rather shady means, because if you don't cheat, then you will lose to somebody who does.
I would prefer it if politicians cooperate when appropriate
Oh, they already do, when it comes to splitting power and keeping people influential to the election happy.
Bottom line is, the system is screwed and there really isn't a great way to fix it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:10PM
by Anonymous Coward
on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:10PM (#420324)
IQ tests are pseudoscientific, at least when it comes to claims that they actually measure intelligence. People with higher IQs might receive better grades and make more money, but there is no evidence that that's all there is to intelligence, or even that those things are significant.
Demonstration of fluency in at least one of Latin, Classical Greek, Sanskrit, Mandarin Chinese and one other modern language foreign to the candidate
Why Latin or some other classical language, and why Mandarin?
However, a foreign language requirement would be a good thing, although you gotta be careful with a multilingual qualification. George W. Bush speaks Spanish and he knew nothing about foreign affairs; so does Jimmy Carter who did and actually gave a speech in front of the Mexican Congress in Spanish with his Georgian drawl, but he was an awful president; and Franklin Roosevelt exchanged barbs at the White House with Albert Einstein in German, but many thought he was a major deputy of the Devil. Herbert Hoover and his wife spoke fluent Mandarin and used it in public to avoid being overheard, but Hoover was a terrible president.
And then there are the dictators. Benito Mussolini spoke both German and English, and his German was good enough to give a speech in the Reichstag. Hitler has a functional knowledge of English although he didn't speak it, and many of his henchmen, including Herman Goering, Joachim von Ribbentropp, Rudolf Hess, Albert Speer, Hjalmar Schacht, Baldar von Schirach, and Karl Dönitz were all fluent English speakers. Saddam Hussein spoke good English, often correcting his translators, as did Nasser and Anwar Sadat.
-- It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09 2016, @06:10AM
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday November 09 2016, @06:10AM (#424364)
IQ test, with public results, plus
All that would prove is that they could pass tests
Written examination on elementary ethics, with public results, Written examination on elementary economics, with public results, Written examination on elementary military strategy/conflict studies, with public results,
All that would prove is that they could write/spew bullshit on any subject
Demonstration of fluency in at least one of Latin, Classical Greek, Sanskrit, Mandarin Chinese and one other modern language foreign to the candidate.
All that would prove is that they could bullshit in another language.
Politicians should be qualified to do their job.
They are, they're lying shyster hucksters to a person of unspecified gender/species
Demagogy is not a qualification.
Eh?. excuse me, but have you looked into the history of politics and politicians through the centuries? seems to me that it's been a long standing prequisite for the buggers..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @07:08PM
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday November 10 2016, @07:08PM (#425247)
That would be an excellent way to select best candidates, too bad they wouldn't get past 1% votes. It's common people to be educated so that they demand better candidates to choose from.
It's a chicken and egg problem though: politicians love stupid people because they're easier to fool and herd, so don't expect them to do anything to educate the masses.
I actually voted "other," and here's my idea -- all candidates, without any kind of protection, are placed in the center of an arena full of angry minorities and are shown A. Wyatt Mann drawings. [imgur.com]
Also a potentially good idea is one from Athens: Whenever somebody left office, they were immediately put on trial for their actions in office, with penalties that could include fines, banishment, and even death. In particular, they had to pay out any amount of public funds in their control that they could not account for. That's a kind of accountability that doesn't exist for, say, presidents in their second term.
-- The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
Make them run an Advanced Infantry training course. They get to ask and answer "debate" questions at prearranged stations on the course. If they can't finish the course, they can't be elected.
This idea stems from the concept of having national leaders fight wars, instead of the populace. We disagree with Moscow, our president challenges Putin to a wrestling, boxing, or other martial contest, in person. If Putin kicks the president's ass, then Russia wins. If the president kicks Putin's ass, then the USA wins.
So, we want to elect someone who on a good day, just might whip Putin if he's having a bad day.
Or, the idea above, with dueling would work. Or juggling grenades. Politicians are far to ready to go to war, because they never face the possibility of death, other than an assassination attempt.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Thursday October 27 2016, @01:00AM
This idea stems from the concept of having national leaders fight wars, instead of the populace. We disagree with Moscow, our president challenges Putin to a wrestling, boxing, or other martial contest, in person. If Putin kicks the president's ass, then Russia wins. If the president kicks Putin's ass, then the USA wins.
This is the setting of the music video [youtube.com] for Little Big's Kind Inside Hard Outside, which depicts Obama and Putin fighting each other in personal combat and opens with the following totally broken English text (the band is Russian):
Imagine there is an alternative reality in which personal ambitions of politicians and their decision have no influence on destinies of simple citizens. Society in which "divide and rule" principle doesn't work. After all any war is upholding of interests of elite which often have nothing in common with interests of people. One victim instead of millions.
Heh - just imagining that Obama could stand toe-to-toe with Putin takes a lot of artistic license. I think Obama would at least give Putin a fight, but it wouldn't last long. Now, the two candidate? Two hits. Putin hits him/her, he/she hits the floor, that's not even a fight.
I agree with your armchair analysis. How do you feel about the hypothetical Trump v. Biden [usatoday.com] matchup? While that link discusses a fight in the current day, I think it's fair to note that Biden's original proposal was meant to take place some 50-odd years in the past, which would make their slight age difference work for Biden rather than against him. It also takes away his military years, for whatever those are worth. In either scenario, past or present, my money's on the Teflonald Donald.
TBH, I don't know enough about Biden to evaluate how "tough" he is. I don't think Trump is/was very tough. My impression is, he's always had people around him, where maybe Biden has been out on his own.
There are a lot of different kinds of tough, too. A street tough, or thug, can often get the edge on a trained fighter. I've seen it happen. Also, street toughs lack the civilization of a tough college boy. I sat in a bar one evening, two buddies from different walks of life. The more educated guy says something like, "Yes, of course you can do it, but you won't." I could have told him, that was a challenge to my other buddy. The educated guy didn't even realize that he had been hit until he was picking himself up off the floor. Professor was (probably still is) tough enough, in his own world, but he's lost out here in what we might call the "real world".
I googled Biden's military service. He was drafted, but failed the medical because of asthma. A person who knows that, and knows how to use the knowledge to his advantage will have Biden on the ground with just a couple hits. (depending on how bad the asthma is, of course) If the fight were otherwise a fair fight, Biden is going to lack the stamina for a long fight.
I'm going to have to agree with Freddie Roach on this one.
To elaborate, just a tiny bit - the USMC says that "a fair fight is any fight you walk away from". Street toughs seem to know this instinctively. Where Biden probably expects to fight by the rules, Trump makes his own rules.
Promoters of sambo say it received a major boost when Vladimir Putin became president of Russia in 2000 and revealed during one of his first interviews with foreign media that he had practiced sambo as a child.
Putin, a former KGB agent who served as president for eight years and is now Russia’s powerful prime minister, started practicing sambo at age 14 before switching to judo. He eventually obtained a black belt in judo.
Vladimir Putin (Russian President, 2000–2008 and 2012–; Russian Prime Minister, 2008–2012): Putin was awarded 8th dan in 2012 and became the first Russian to have been awarded the eighth dan, joining a handful of judo fighters in the world who have achieved such status.[41] Putin was awarded 7th dan in 2009 [42] and 6th dan (prestigious red & white belt) at the Kodokan in 2000.[43] In the 1970s, he was awarded a Master of Sports in both judo and sambo. Putin has described judo as "my favorite sport", and he continues to practice it.[44] In 2004 he co-authored a book about judo, published in Russian as Judo with Vladimir Putin and in English as Judo: History, Theory, Practice.[45] The book has now been made into a film called Judo with Vladimir Putin.
By contrast, Obama received his blue belt [mixedmartialarts.com] (the second rank) in Jiu-Jitsu this year. Judo is more-or-less the standup half of Jiu-Jitsu, and sambo is also supposed to overlap with Jiu-Jitsu a lot (I know they allow crazier leg stuff than is generally allowed in Jiu-Jitsu, but there are other things that are off limits). My money is on Putin, though not for striking reasons; I bet Obama leaves that cage with totally fucked up knees.
Stopping to google striking skillz, though, it seems that Obama has a green belt in Taekwondo [dailymail.co.uk], while Putin has black belts in both Taekwondo [huffingtonpost.com] and Karate [washingtontimes.com], for whatever those are worth (Taekwondo is probably slightly more valid than Karate).
I could definitely see questioning whether a figure like Putin would have to earn all of these belts through skill alone, but it would seem ridiculous to doubt that he has more skill than Obama. I agree that Obama is probably in better physical condition due to age, but I wouldn't call Putin flabby. I'd be glad to be that muscly at that age. I wonder who can bench more.
I take GPAC to mean that instead of an empty chamber, there is a round with no powder or primer. This has the advantage of not giving any visible indication of chamber state from any angle, which is not the case for all revolvers with an empty chamber. If the round itself is empty, and presumably the other chambers have live rounds, this gives the first to go an 80%-87.5% chance of losing (assuming the revolver has somewhere between 5 and 8 chambers). If they live, the second to go knows that barring some error they are committing suicide by pulling the trigger. I think Yu-Gi-Oh style air hockey [thefullwiki.org] would be more interesting (the beaker is nitroglycerin, this is from one of the early comics where Yami Yugi challenges people to bizarre death games instead of just playing cards with them).
But I was told that if I waste my vote on a third party candidate that I was indirectly voting for the eventual winner and therefore responsible for the winner. Similar logic if I do not vote at all.
My plan on election day is to declare the land within a ten foot radius of myself a sovereign state for 24 hours. In doing so I absolve myself from any responsibility for the outcome of the election for my temporary American neighbors.
But I was told that if I waste my vote on a third party candidate that I was indirectly voting for the eventual winner and therefore responsible for the winner. Similar logic if I do not vote at all.
How can you vote for someone without affecting their vote count at all? People who say things like this are borderline retarded. I respond to them by telling them that they've convinced me to vote for their most hated candidate from one of the dominant parties, and since they claim that voting third party is no different from voting for [insert really evil candidate here], they have no cause to complain because nothing changed.
It's also great when supporters of Candidate A tell you that voting third party is aids Candidate B, and at the same time, supporters of Candidate B tell you you're helping Candidate A by voting third party. Your own preferences and principles don't matter to these suckers; they just want you to vote for a particular candidate, and only want you to stop voting third party if you would vote for their candidate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 08 2016, @07:36PM
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday November 08 2016, @07:36PM (#424204)
You waste your (opportunity to) vote if you don't vote. If you vote in other races, but don't vote in the presidential race, then your vote will be almost entirely wasted. Little attention is given to the count of ballots cast with no presidential vote. If you vote for any candidate other than Trump or Clinton, your vote will be perceived as being against both of them. That is the most effective choice you can make, if you don't want either of them in office.
2 Candidates 1 Cup? Who really has the grit to do whatever it takes, and who will chicken out first after their first mouthful? The fellow from 1 Guy 1 Screwdriver should host, obviously.
Comey should have pushed for an indictment of HRC before the Democratic primaries. Face it, Trump is the only person HRC can beat, and HRC is the only person Trump can beat. Put anyone else in either slot and it would be a landslide. Neither of these assholes deserve to be president.
I need to drive to Vegas and put a bet down on the odds of the next president being impeached in the next 4 years.
-- Why shouldn't we judge a book by it's cover? It's got the author, title, and a summary of what the book's about.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Saturday October 29 2016, @06:41PM
I need to drive to Vegas and put a bet down on the odds of the next president being impeached in the next 4 years.
I don't think the next president will be removed from office via impeachment. And here's why: Whoever wins will have at least 34 senators in their party, and those senators will remain loyal to the president (and, if there's any concerns about their loyalty, the president will I'm sure have plenty of dirt on them). The House, for its part, will know that that dynamic is in play in the Senate, so even if the opposition party has a majority in the House, they will only vote to impeach for grandstanding purposes.
Note that all of this is in no way affected by whether the president has actually committed "Treason, Bribery, or Other High Crimes and Misdemeanors". Because I think we all know full well that if bribery alone were cause to remove a president from office, almost no presidents would have made it to the end of their term.
-- The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
Thunderdome also conveniently removes the need for a vote. Problem might be what quality, quantity will not be an issue - there will always be people around for that, of candidates do we get when the "election" process comes down to a deathmatch. But considering what is on offer today I'm not entirely certain it would matter all that much if it's groper-Trump, sleezy-Clinton or Master-Blaster. If they just put it on pay-per-view then perhaps it could even pay for itself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @01:54PM
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday November 04 2016, @01:54PM (#422471)
Title sez it all...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 07 2016, @12:43AM
by Anonymous Coward
on Monday November 07 2016, @12:43AM (#423320)
Something deadly would give us a reckless president.
Something peaceful would give us a president unsuited to the rough world we live in, unable to deal with war.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pTamok on Wednesday October 26 2016, @12:27PM
IQ test, with public results, plus
Written examination on elementary ethics, with public results,
Written examination on elementary economics, with public results,
Written examination on elementary military strategy/conflict studies, with public results,
Demonstration of fluency in at least one of Latin, Classical Greek, Sanskrit, Mandarin Chinese and one other modern language foreign to the candidate.
Politicians should be qualified to do their job. Demagogy is not a qualification.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Wednesday October 26 2016, @01:03PM
The framing of the question concerned me.
Why do we have to see politics as a competition?
I suppose there are competing ideas, but I would prefer it if politicians cooperate when appropriate. That is kind of required to get things done.
So maybe they should add multi-partisan team building exercises to the debates. I know, you would need more than two 'choices' to actually make that interesting though :P
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jdavidb on Wednesday October 26 2016, @03:31PM
Why do we have to see politics as a competition?
Because everybody is forced to accept the one-size-fits-all leader who wins the competition, instead of permitting everybody to select their own leader which might not be the same as their neighbors.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 4, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Thursday October 27 2016, @06:18PM
(Score: 2, Insightful) by shanen on Sunday October 30 2016, @05:43AM
Cooperation is one of the reasons for coalition government. Unfortunately, the US Constitution is hard-coded for winner-takes-all, so the equilibrium points are two parties or one.
Probably even worse, each issue gets reduced to a scale, and whichever side of the scale your party started on, both parties wind up trying to get to the middle of the Bell Curve where most of the voters are. Essentially impossible to sustain any ideological positions, in contrast to coalition governments where you can gain some degree of power just by being strong on any important issue.
The GOP decided to try to rig the game by moving the right side goalposts. Their idea was to make the middle look closer to their preferred outcome, but they moved the goalposts so far that they wound up in Wonderland. Now Trump is leading the entire party down the rabbit hole.
My "Other" answer was "Substantial discussion of the ACTUAL issues". Of course that is predicated on having a candidate who is not dominating the election with such pageantry as accusations and denials of sexual assault.
Try to imagine that you wanted to ask Trump about why the election is rigged in favor of his churchgoing farmers. I'd wage he has NO idea what the 2nd Tuesday in November thing is all about. Another bit of the Constitution that needs improvement, eh?
#1 Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice{5} ≠ (Beer^4 | Speech) and your negative mods prove you are a narrow prick.
(Score: 1) by MilanorTSW on Tuesday November 01 2016, @03:10PM
Why do we have to see politics as a competition?
Because there is power involved. The main goal in politics is getting that power and staying there. People's interests are secondary unless used as means of getting power, which is why only a select few people crucial to sway for the election victory ever get to see most of their interests met.
Politicians that don't play by those rules end their reign very fast, so even if they really do have the interest of making the world a better place to live in they still have to resort to competing with others in order to remain in power. Sometimes using rather shady means, because if you don't cheat, then you will lose to somebody who does.
I would prefer it if politicians cooperate when appropriate
Oh, they already do, when it comes to splitting power and keeping people influential to the election happy.
Bottom line is, the system is screwed and there really isn't a great way to fix it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @06:20PM
Divide et impera (divide and conquer).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:10PM
IQ tests are pseudoscientific, at least when it comes to claims that they actually measure intelligence. People with higher IQs might receive better grades and make more money, but there is no evidence that that's all there is to intelligence, or even that those things are significant.
(Score: 2) by Snow on Friday November 04 2016, @10:08PM
Well, for this election, maybe a test like this might suffice:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJIjoE27F-Q [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Tuesday November 08 2016, @08:33PM
IQ is merely a measure of potential, if you have a high IQ you should thank your parents and strive to live up to that potential. So few do...
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by mendax on Tuesday November 08 2016, @07:20AM
Why Latin or some other classical language, and why Mandarin?
However, a foreign language requirement would be a good thing, although you gotta be careful with a multilingual qualification. George W. Bush speaks Spanish and he knew nothing about foreign affairs; so does Jimmy Carter who did and actually gave a speech in front of the Mexican Congress in Spanish with his Georgian drawl, but he was an awful president; and Franklin Roosevelt exchanged barbs at the White House with Albert Einstein in German, but many thought he was a major deputy of the Devil. Herbert Hoover and his wife spoke fluent Mandarin and used it in public to avoid being overheard, but Hoover was a terrible president.
And then there are the dictators. Benito Mussolini spoke both German and English, and his German was good enough to give a speech in the Reichstag. Hitler has a functional knowledge of English although he didn't speak it, and many of his henchmen, including Herman Goering, Joachim von Ribbentropp, Rudolf Hess, Albert Speer, Hjalmar Schacht, Baldar von Schirach, and Karl Dönitz were all fluent English speakers. Saddam Hussein spoke good English, often correcting his translators, as did Nasser and Anwar Sadat.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Wednesday November 09 2016, @07:26PM
Oh, and I forgot about John Quincy Adams, who spoke French, German, Dutch, and Russian as well as English.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09 2016, @06:10AM
IQ test, with public results, plus
All that would prove is that they could pass tests
Written examination on elementary ethics, with public results,
Written examination on elementary economics, with public results,
Written examination on elementary military strategy/conflict studies, with public results,
All that would prove is that they could write/spew bullshit on any subject
Demonstration of fluency in at least one of Latin, Classical Greek, Sanskrit, Mandarin Chinese and one other modern language foreign to the candidate.
All that would prove is that they could bullshit in another language.
Politicians should be qualified to do their job.
They are, they're lying shyster hucksters to a person of unspecified gender/species
Demagogy is not a qualification.
Eh?. excuse me, but have you looked into the history of politics and politicians through the centuries? seems to me that it's been a long standing prequisite for the buggers..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @07:08PM
That would be an excellent way to select best candidates, too bad they wouldn't get past 1% votes.
It's common people to be educated so that they demand better candidates to choose from.
It's a chicken and egg problem though: politicians love stupid people because they're easier to fool
and herd, so don't expect them to do anything to educate the masses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 26 2016, @01:24PM
I figured that the most popular options would be those with a chance of candidate death (at least for this US presidential election).
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Wednesday October 26 2016, @01:55PM
Maybe they can duel with a stiletto in the one hand, and a grenade in the other? Preferably in the thunderdome please.
compiling...
(Score: 5, Interesting) by JeanCroix on Wednesday October 26 2016, @02:32PM
Too serious?
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 26 2016, @02:49PM
Too unrealistic.
(Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Wednesday October 26 2016, @05:39PM
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday October 31 2016, @11:02PM
Too shay, Gene Crocks.
Where's Ross Pee-rot 3.11 when you need him?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday October 26 2016, @04:49PM
Wouldn't have done either of them any favors, this time around.
Definitely agree, though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 26 2016, @08:14PM
I'd even settle for a real debate with the other primary party's candidate...
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday October 28 2016, @06:14PM
Not only that, but with unmoderated debates.
I actually voted "other," and here's my idea -- all candidates, without any kind of protection, are placed in the center of an arena full of angry minorities and are shown A. Wyatt Mann drawings. [imgur.com]
The last candidate to start laughing wins.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday October 26 2016, @03:32PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 5, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday October 26 2016, @04:51PM
Wait, that isn't what they did to Clinton?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday November 01 2016, @01:35PM
Also a potentially good idea is one from Athens: Whenever somebody left office, they were immediately put on trial for their actions in office, with penalties that could include fines, banishment, and even death. In particular, they had to pay out any amount of public funds in their control that they could not account for. That's a kind of accountability that doesn't exist for, say, presidents in their second term.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by e_armadillo on Wednesday October 26 2016, @09:04PM
Before each candidate answers each question, they down a shot of tequilla.
Once they are done, microphone is shut off, and wont be turned back on until they down another shot, so interruptions also cost a shot.
"How are we gonna get out of here?" ... "We'll dig our way out!" ... "No, no, dig UP stupid!"
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 28 2016, @07:19PM
Mexico would happily pay for the tequila.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 26 2016, @11:51PM
Make them run an Advanced Infantry training course. They get to ask and answer "debate" questions at prearranged stations on the course. If they can't finish the course, they can't be elected.
This idea stems from the concept of having national leaders fight wars, instead of the populace. We disagree with Moscow, our president challenges Putin to a wrestling, boxing, or other martial contest, in person. If Putin kicks the president's ass, then Russia wins. If the president kicks Putin's ass, then the USA wins.
So, we want to elect someone who on a good day, just might whip Putin if he's having a bad day.
Or, the idea above, with dueling would work. Or juggling grenades. Politicians are far to ready to go to war, because they never face the possibility of death, other than an assassination attempt.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Thursday October 27 2016, @01:00AM
This idea stems from the concept of having national leaders fight wars, instead of the populace. We disagree with Moscow, our president challenges Putin to a wrestling, boxing, or other martial contest, in person. If Putin kicks the president's ass, then Russia wins. If the president kicks Putin's ass, then the USA wins.
This is the setting of the music video [youtube.com] for Little Big's Kind Inside Hard Outside, which depicts Obama and Putin fighting each other in personal combat and opens with the following totally broken English text (the band is Russian):
Imagine there is an alternative reality in which personal ambitions of politicians and their decision have no influence on destinies of simple citizens.
Society in which "divide and rule" principle doesn't work.
After all any war is upholding of interests of elite which often have nothing in common with interests of people.
One victim instead of millions.
I won't spoil the ending for you.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 27 2016, @11:01PM
Heh - just imagining that Obama could stand toe-to-toe with Putin takes a lot of artistic license. I think Obama would at least give Putin a fight, but it wouldn't last long. Now, the two candidate? Two hits. Putin hits him/her, he/she hits the floor, that's not even a fight.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Friday October 28 2016, @03:01PM
I agree with your armchair analysis. How do you feel about the hypothetical Trump v. Biden [usatoday.com] matchup? While that link discusses a fight in the current day, I think it's fair to note that Biden's original proposal was meant to take place some 50-odd years in the past, which would make their slight age difference work for Biden rather than against him. It also takes away his military years, for whatever those are worth. In either scenario, past or present, my money's on the Teflonald Donald.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday October 28 2016, @07:39PM
TBH, I don't know enough about Biden to evaluate how "tough" he is. I don't think Trump is/was very tough. My impression is, he's always had people around him, where maybe Biden has been out on his own.
There are a lot of different kinds of tough, too. A street tough, or thug, can often get the edge on a trained fighter. I've seen it happen. Also, street toughs lack the civilization of a tough college boy. I sat in a bar one evening, two buddies from different walks of life. The more educated guy says something like, "Yes, of course you can do it, but you won't." I could have told him, that was a challenge to my other buddy. The educated guy didn't even realize that he had been hit until he was picking himself up off the floor. Professor was (probably still is) tough enough, in his own world, but he's lost out here in what we might call the "real world".
I googled Biden's military service. He was drafted, but failed the medical because of asthma. A person who knows that, and knows how to use the knowledge to his advantage will have Biden on the ground with just a couple hits. (depending on how bad the asthma is, of course) If the fight were otherwise a fair fight, Biden is going to lack the stamina for a long fight.
I'm going to have to agree with Freddie Roach on this one.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday October 28 2016, @07:42PM
To elaborate, just a tiny bit - the USMC says that "a fair fight is any fight you walk away from". Street toughs seem to know this instinctively. Where Biden probably expects to fight by the rules, Trump makes his own rules.
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Friday October 28 2016, @10:04PM
Methinks thou dost underestimate the 1,900 PSI Trump can create with the tiny hands mounted on his large frame!
(HINT: Trump only requires 1,700 PSI to break the femur.)
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Sunday October 30 2016, @11:56PM
I'm not so sure Obama loses to Putin.
Putin's advantages:
- KGB training
Obama's advantages:
- Almost 10 years younger
- Less flabby
Both regularly engage in athletic activities - Putin does his running around outside hunting and such, Obama mostly plays basketball.
So I think if Obama can get a couple of good head punches in to disorient Putin, he has a good shot of throwing Putin off his game.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JNCF on Monday October 31 2016, @02:02PM
Putin appears to have martial arts training that predates his involvement in Russia's TLAs [timeslive.co.za]:
Promoters of sambo say it received a major boost when Vladimir Putin became president of Russia in 2000 and revealed during one of his first interviews with foreign media that he had practiced sambo as a child.
Putin, a former KGB agent who served as president for eight years and is now Russia’s powerful prime minister, started practicing sambo at age 14 before switching to judo. He eventually obtained a black belt in judo.
From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
Vladimir Putin (Russian President, 2000–2008 and 2012–; Russian Prime Minister, 2008–2012): Putin was awarded 8th dan in 2012 and became the first Russian to have been awarded the eighth dan, joining a handful of judo fighters in the world who have achieved such status.[41] Putin was awarded 7th dan in 2009 [42] and 6th dan (prestigious red & white belt) at the Kodokan in 2000.[43] In the 1970s, he was awarded a Master of Sports in both judo and sambo. Putin has described judo as "my favorite sport", and he continues to practice it.[44] In 2004 he co-authored a book about judo, published in Russian as Judo with Vladimir Putin and in English as Judo: History, Theory, Practice.[45] The book has now been made into a film called Judo with Vladimir Putin.
By contrast, Obama received his blue belt [mixedmartialarts.com] (the second rank) in Jiu-Jitsu this year. Judo is more-or-less the standup half of Jiu-Jitsu, and sambo is also supposed to overlap with Jiu-Jitsu a lot (I know they allow crazier leg stuff than is generally allowed in Jiu-Jitsu, but there are other things that are off limits). My money is on Putin, though not for striking reasons; I bet Obama leaves that cage with totally fucked up knees.
Stopping to google striking skillz, though, it seems that Obama has a green belt in Taekwondo [dailymail.co.uk], while Putin has black belts in both Taekwondo [huffingtonpost.com] and Karate [washingtontimes.com], for whatever those are worth (Taekwondo is probably slightly more valid than Karate).
I could definitely see questioning whether a figure like Putin would have to earn all of these belts through skill alone, but it would seem ridiculous to doubt that he has more skill than Obama. I agree that Obama is probably in better physical condition due to age, but I wouldn't call Putin flabby. I'd be glad to be that muscly at that age. I wonder who can bench more.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday October 31 2016, @08:09PM
I think the key is when he's shaking Putin's hand before the fight, get in the surprise knee to the groin early.
Would only work once, unfortunately.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09 2016, @06:25AM
I think the key is when he's shaking Putin's hand before the fight, get in the surprise knee to the groin early.
'The code of the west,
You must do unto others,
Do unto others before they do it unto you..'
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday October 31 2016, @08:06PM
You call that "totally broken English"?! It's like 97% perfect. It's better English than a lot of musicians who speak it natively these days :P
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday October 27 2016, @02:15AM
Ze lie detector test with almost lethal shocks given for wrong answers (lies).
That would disable 99.9999 of all politicians!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday November 01 2016, @11:38PM
I was thinking of a similar game. The candidates start their speeches at the same time, the first one who tells something true loses.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @09:38PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 28 2016, @12:02AM
Congress would finally have perfect bipartisan support for gun control.
Side note: Did you mean "loaded"? If the empty round is chambered, then wouldn't that mean whoever goes first wins?
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Friday October 28 2016, @03:33PM
I take GPAC to mean that instead of an empty chamber, there is a round with no powder or primer. This has the advantage of not giving any visible indication of chamber state from any angle, which is not the case for all revolvers with an empty chamber. If the round itself is empty, and presumably the other chambers have live rounds, this gives the first to go an 80%-87.5% chance of losing (assuming the revolver has somewhere between 5 and 8 chambers). If they live, the second to go knows that barring some error they are committing suicide by pulling the trigger. I think Yu-Gi-Oh style air hockey [thefullwiki.org] would be more interesting (the beaker is nitroglycerin, this is from one of the early comics where Yami Yugi challenges people to bizarre death games instead of just playing cards with them).
(Score: 2) by snufu on Friday October 28 2016, @09:29AM
Deuling
Jousting
Two candidates, one parachute.
Thunderdome match.
Anything that saves us the pain of having to vote for one of them.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 28 2016, @01:45PM
Anything that saves us the pain of having to vote for one of them.
You can save yourself that pain by simply not voting for either of them.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by snufu on Friday October 28 2016, @10:44PM
But I was told that if I waste my vote on a third party candidate that I was indirectly voting for the eventual winner and therefore responsible for the winner.
Similar logic if I do not vote at all.
My plan on election day is to declare the land within a ten foot radius of myself a sovereign state for 24 hours. In doing so I absolve myself from any responsibility for the outcome of the election for my temporary American neighbors.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:19PM
But I was told that if I waste my vote on a third party candidate that I was indirectly voting for the eventual winner and therefore responsible for the winner.
Similar logic if I do not vote at all.
How can you vote for someone without affecting their vote count at all? People who say things like this are borderline retarded. I respond to them by telling them that they've convinced me to vote for their most hated candidate from one of the dominant parties, and since they claim that voting third party is no different from voting for [insert really evil candidate here], they have no cause to complain because nothing changed.
It's also great when supporters of Candidate A tell you that voting third party is aids Candidate B, and at the same time, supporters of Candidate B tell you you're helping Candidate A by voting third party. Your own preferences and principles don't matter to these suckers; they just want you to vote for a particular candidate, and only want you to stop voting third party if you would vote for their candidate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 08 2016, @07:36PM
You waste your (opportunity to) vote if you don't vote. If you vote in other races, but don't vote in the presidential race, then your vote will be almost entirely wasted. Little attention is given to the count of ballots cast with no presidential vote. If you vote for any candidate other than Trump or Clinton, your vote will be perceived as being against both of them. That is the most effective choice you can make, if you don't want either of them in office.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Friday October 28 2016, @02:14PM
Two candidates, one parachute.
2 Candidates 1 Cup? Who really has the grit to do whatever it takes, and who will chicken out first after their first mouthful? The fellow from 1 Guy 1 Screwdriver should host, obviously.
I enjoyed the slam poetry section [youtube.com] of the second Presidential debate.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Saturday October 29 2016, @03:36AM
Comey should have pushed for an indictment of HRC before the Democratic primaries. Face it, Trump is the only person HRC can beat, and HRC is the only person Trump can beat. Put anyone else in either slot and it would be a landslide. Neither of these assholes deserve to be president.
I need to drive to Vegas and put a bet down on the odds of the next president being impeached in the next 4 years.
Why shouldn't we judge a book by it's cover? It's got the author, title, and a summary of what the book's about.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Saturday October 29 2016, @06:41PM
Amazingly, there are other candidates, but do to an overabundance of stupid people, they are are irrelevant.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday November 01 2016, @02:15PM
I don't think the next president will be removed from office via impeachment. And here's why: Whoever wins will have at least 34 senators in their party, and those senators will remain loyal to the president (and, if there's any concerns about their loyalty, the president will I'm sure have plenty of dirt on them). The House, for its part, will know that that dynamic is in play in the Senate, so even if the opposition party has a majority in the House, they will only vote to impeach for grandstanding purposes.
Note that all of this is in no way affected by whether the president has actually committed "Treason, Bribery, or Other High Crimes and Misdemeanors". Because I think we all know full well that if bribery alone were cause to remove a president from office, almost no presidents would have made it to the end of their term.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03 2016, @02:22PM
I think republicans could impeach Trump. Their VP is more to their liking anyway.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Sunday October 30 2016, @03:02PM
A competition to express ideas in complete, well formed sentences. The most sentences in the shortest time. Bonus for concision.
Alternatively, a drug test for illegal substances.
People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday October 30 2016, @05:26PM
Why not a minimum contest rather than max?
"Took fewest corporate donations"
"Bought least (negative) TV commercials or other ads"
"Shortest criminal record"
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday November 04 2016, @12:39AM
Those ones never make it to the "debates"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @06:37PM
President Andrew Jackson was a duelist, and dueling is an American tradition. The rest of the options are jokes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 31 2016, @12:24PM
The rest of the options are jokes.
Just like the candidates themselves.
*ba-dum-tsh*
(Score: 2) by looorg on Thursday November 03 2016, @07:23PM
Thunderdome also conveniently removes the need for a vote. Problem might be what quality, quantity will not be an issue - there will always be people around for that, of candidates do we get when the "election" process comes down to a deathmatch. But considering what is on offer today I'm not entirely certain it would matter all that much if it's groper-Trump, sleezy-Clinton or Master-Blaster. If they just put it on pay-per-view then perhaps it could even pay for itself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @01:54PM
Title sez it all...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 07 2016, @12:43AM
Something deadly would give us a reckless president.
Something peaceful would give us a president unsuited to the rough world we live in, unable to deal with war.
Paint ball is the perfect choice.