fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2949 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2949 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

[Persona 4]

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

[Howl's Moving Castle]

__________________________________________________

04.

[True Detective]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Homestuck]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Jane the Virgin]

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

(Transformers Armada)

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

[Hannibal - Richard Armitage/Lee Pace]

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15. [ SPOILERS for Into the Woods ]

__________________________________________________

16. [ SPOILERS for Dragon Age ]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #421.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The problem with the Democratic side is that Hillary is too dominant. So Warren's not going to run and if she did she'd just get squashed. You need that nice open space to get high quality comedy.

Also the fact that I happen to like Warren is the other problem, but I try not to let that get in the way of appreciating farce.

The Hillatron cannot be stopped, but the Dems should have a few token Presidential Newbs up on the stage.

I find Warren to be loathsome, but she would bring good comedy to the table. Maybe she can run for Veep.

She's not going to be the Veep, the ticket would be too unbalanced (two women, same age bracket, from the Northeast? Yeah, no). It'll be someone from the West or Midwest. My money's on Michael Bennet, the senator from Colorado.

There will be some token opposition to Hillary (Bernie Sanders is running, Brian Schweitzer is apparently trying to run, Martin O'Malley might, that one guy from Virginia whose name I can't remember even though he has less than no shot) but no one who's going to give her serious opposition. They might not even have debates. The best hope from a comedy point of view is if Diamond Joe throws his hat into the ring, but he probably won't. Hillary just has everyone important in the party on her side.

Re: Warren again, I don't want to get partisan at all, so all I'll say is that while I can't even remotely understand why you would loath Warren even assuming a complete political disagreement, I respect your loathing.

Warren's a liar who plays to her base by dreaming up stupid policies.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-01-26/big-pharma-a-pointless-target-for-warren

Clinton's ego is too great for her to share the spotlight with another woman, but I can dream. Seeing those two go down in flames would be the highlight of 2016.

I haven't heard of any of those other people except for Bernie Sanders and the Virginian you're referencing. Jim Webb was a pretty good Senator and he left without any major scandals. Virginia is a purple state (although it'll probably vote red in this next election), but Clinton could do a whole lot worse than recruiting Webb to run as her veep.

I think if you decided to hate every senator who had an idea that was poorly thought out and dumb as hell, there'd be very few left to like. Not saying that's necessarily wrong mind you.

The problem re: Webb is that his whole thing in trying to position himself within the Democratic party is trying to push hard to appeal to white voters, be a populist, win back the Reagan Dems. And the thing is, regardless of what you may think of the idea in details, there's just no way that's going to be an effective strategy for Democrats in 2016 or going forward. I mean, just very specifically in tactical terms, I don't think it makes sense as a way to win an election.

Point taken.

The Dems have always had a problem with strategy. They largely win by catering to their base and by blaming Bush (it's Cheney they should be blaming. Honestly, they could probably win some votes that way). Right now their strategy seems to be Hilary or nothing.

I mean, that works great for me, but you guys might want to have a come to Jesus meeting or something.

I think the current plan is basically just constantly reciting the mantra, "Structural advantage in the Electoral College, structural advantage in the Electoral College, structural advantage in the Electoral College", and hoping like hell the Republicans completely screw up.

It's not a great look.

I think Warren is very aware that she can be a better Senator than President. In the Senate, she can focus on the fiscal issues she's good at.

If Hillary wants to be the Head of State, a lot of people may be willing to let her be saddled with that.

[ SECRET POST #2949 ]

Re: Current events

Re: Current events

Re: Current events

Re: Current events

Re: Current events

Re: Current events

Re: Current events

Re: Current events