h a l f b a k e r y0.5 and holding.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
| |
No worse than the current "who's got the most wedge" system. Possibly better. |
|
| |
Isn't this how we currently do it? |
|
| |
Wasn't born in the US, sorry. (And if they changed the rules, I'd be running against Arnold Schwarzennegger.) |
|
| |
Well, I'm thinking the challenges would be designed to improve upon current process. Maybe they'll scrap the primaries and adopt my system :) |
|
| |
The embodiment of this often-made comparison pretty much aired on Showtime in 2004. That you don't know about that tells you just how little traction it got. |
|
| |
Interesting link -- and you're right, I had no inlking of it. |
|
| |
I guess, Jutta, we're getting there now, it just took a
couple of years. |
|
| |
Jesus Christ, I'm definitely not paid enough. |
|
| |
This would be a good way of identifying people
who on no account should be allowed to
become president |
|
| |
Counting the current one, we've had 44. Not getting into the
politics, how many you think could? Putting it another way,
you can come up with the 10 best, or 10 consequential, right?
What did the rest of them do, anything useful? |
|
| |
So long as they don't do damage, it's good enough. Of course
several did create major damage, and the current crop is not
immune to the risk. |
|
| |
//Counting the current one, we've had 44// |
|
| |
Isn't the presidential motto: Above all, do no harm? No wait,
that's the medical industry. The president is allowed to harm.
In fact it may be a requisite. |
|
| |
I think it's been well established -- in my own mind at least
-- that I have the most prescient ideas on the HB :) |
|
| |
However, as Trump's odds of testing positive increase, and as
both his main rivals odds are also pretty high given campaign
activity -- unless they kind of stop altogether, -- the Decider
will become more like Deathrace 2020 |
|
| |
I initially read this as "The De-icer", a TV show in
which people complete folksy manual labor tasks
(building a log cabin from trees, removing snow
from a log cabin's roof in midwinter, harvesting
potatoes, negotiating the sale of a wagon-load of the
potatoes, trying to collect on crop insurance after a
hailstorm obliterates the watermelon crop and the
insurer leaves town, etc. etc.) |
|
| |
This is brilliant, people would watch it and there's a chance
that it could create a presidential candidate. |
|
| |
The corporate president pickers would not like this though.
Getting public support is one thing, then you have to get the
approval of the corporations unless you get in by accident
because they don't take you seriously. |
|
| |
Which this show might be able to deliver on. |
|
| |
Pre-Trump I commented on this. Now post-Trump, I have
bunned it [+] |
|
| |
Here's the deal though, it really would have to hide the
person's
party because people vote for their tribe more than
anything else. |
|
| |
Although people rooting for their political party
candidate might make it interesting I suppose, same way
people root for their football
team. |
|
| |
Some gal came out with a book recently saying the "swing
voter" is a myth, no such thing. Sometimes the two sides
get more or less motivated according to this gal, but
that's the only factor. People don't change their minds. |
|
| |
I read a short story (I'll find title/author later & come
back...) about this sort of idea (vaguely); but instead of just
hiding the candidates affiliation (as per [doctorremulac3]
above), the candidate's identity was secret too. So people
had to vote purely on policy and stuff, not looks or
popularity or where they went to college... |
|
| |
hmm 14 years for this cycle to mostly run its course. |
|
| |
I have a feeling though that beyond any surprises 2020 has
left, 2024 is not going to be far behind... |
|
| |
Well, at least we know who to blame for the last 4 years. |
|
| |
Took me a while to "come back"...
"The People's Choice", by William John Watkins (1974).
Can't find it online (although I didn't try digging in to Google
Books). |
|
| |