The New American Politics thread

[nik-]

The US is headed for another 8 years of ####, unless a surprise nominee comes out of nowhere.

... even then, who am I kidding

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by ernie

So the Fed Ex logo has an arrow moving backwards to you?

I don't see an arrow in Fed Ex's logo.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

I don't see an arrow in Fed Ex's logo.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Huh. I never noticed it before....


But, yes, that arrow does look like it is going backwards to me as well.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Huh. I never noticed it before....


But, yes, that arrow does look like it is going backwards to me as well.

I could understand if it was UPS but FedEx gets things there on time (mostly). Not sure how anyone thinks an arrow going left to right like that is going backwards as explained earlier.

Oh and now that you know the FedEx arrow exists you will never stop seeing it. It will now be the only thing you see when you pass a FedEx truck.

[photon]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

But, yes, that arrow does look like it is going backwards to me as well.

Is English your first language? I wonder if there's a left = backwards, right = forwards bias for readers of languages that read left to right and the opposite for languages that read right to left?

EDIT: But it's pretty pervasive, look at web browsers... left = back, right = forward.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by ernie

Oh and now that you know the FedEx arrow exists you will never stop seeing it. It will now be the only thing you see when you pass a FedEx truck.

I'm sure that it will be.

So thanks for that...

Originally Posted by photon

Is English your first language?

No.

In fact, when I took the English Language test as part of my application for Canadian Permanent Residency, I received the highest possible score in all four categories (reading, writing, listening, and speaking).

In any event, it is just how I see it. Perhaps I see it "incorrectly," but if I do, so what?

But, for the record, I tend to think of a "forward" arrow as being an arrow pointed upward (or what might look like a "north" arrow or directional sign).

[photon]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

In any event, it is just how I see it. Perhaps I see it "incorrectly," but if I do, so what?

Nothing, I didn't say it was incorrect, I was just asking about your language to see if it fit with my left to right vs right to left reading idea. I don't think proficiency in a language would impact, the natural inclination about which way is forward would be set when learning to read (or is my hypothesis anyway).

Is your native language reading right to left?

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

Not anymore wrong than the millions of voters who won't vote for her just because she's a woman, or all the white people who could never vote for a black man for president, or all the republicans/democrats who could never vote for someone of the opposite party regardless of platform

The vast majority of voters choose their candidate on a single issue, that's the way it's always been and likely always will be

Given that pretty much every single Republican candidate is all too eager to take away my reproductive rights, as a woman, you're damn right I'll vote on that singular issue. Also because a GOP candidate would likely do his best to go back on all of the progress this country has made for the LGBTQ community. This country still needs to move forward, not back. We don't need more "religious freedom" bills.

The only GOP candidate that doesn't terrify me is Marco Rubio. I don't love the guy, but I could tolerate him. Jeb Bush is just another Bush, Rand Paul is an idiot who got where he is because of his father's pull with Libertarians, and Scott Walker has obliterated Wisconson's economy and I'd like to not allow him to do the same to the country as a whole.

So yeah, Hillary is far from the best option, but if it's her or one of those stooges, I'll vote Hillary every single time.

Originally Posted by Montana Moe

My single issue in this election cycle will be the likely appointment of up to four Supreme Court Justices. That will have the ability to influence the United States for decades.

This is a huge sticking point. The SCOTUS is already overly conservative, we don't need to add 3-4 more conservative Justices, this country will fall back to the 50s in no time.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by photon

Is your native language reading right to left?

No, it is left to right.

[photon]

So much for my pet theory.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by troutman

Any reason Bill can't be VP?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_Pr...ection_process

http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/hillary-s...nt-will-be-me/

Bill also indicates, “I will be her VP, and if anything happens to her, God forbid, I will happily be president of the United States again. It’ll be Bill Clinton 2, bigger and blacker.” [SNL]

With Bush #3 and the Clinton's the US is starting to remind me of some Banana Republic

https://www.google.ca/search?q=presi...E4bmoASgxIDgBQ

or Alabama

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lurleen_Wallace

of course we have the Trudeaus.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by troutman

Any reason Bill can't be VP?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_Pr...ection_process

http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/hillary-s...nt-will-be-me/

Bill also indicates, “I will be her VP, and if anything happens to her, God forbid, I will happily be president of the United States again. It’ll be Bill Clinton 2, bigger and blacker.” [SNL]

In spirit, the 12th amendment in combination with the 22nd amendment should forbid it. However it's not It's not 100% explicit because the 22nd amendment says that no person can be elected more than twice to be president.

the 12th amendment

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States

the 22nd amendment

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

Really, that should make him constitutionally ineligible to be Vice President.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Given that pretty much every single Republican candidate is all too eager to take away my reproductive rights, as a woman, you're damn right I'll vote on that singular issue. Also because a GOP candidate would likely do his best to go back on all of the progress this country has made for the LGBTQ community. This country still needs to move forward, not back. We don't need more "religious freedom" bills.

xtian voters will vote for anti abortion candidates on that platform alone, so, yes, people do vote like that.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Holding out hope that someone comes out of nowhere to give us a choice.

[troutman]

Bill Maher could not persuade Elizabeth Warren to run with a $1 M contribution.

What's her long-term goal?

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/04/...arren-run.html

It was a nice try by Bill Maher, but Sen. Warren (D-MA) is well aware that she would have to compromise the principles that her supporters love about her if she ran for president. She would have to take big donations in order raise the absurd amount of cash needed to be competitive. A presidential campaign would also reveal that Warren isn’t much different from Hillary Clinton on the vast majority of issues.

[ernie]

This nomination period for the GOP isn't going to be any different than the last two. In order for someone to win it they are going to have to move closer to the right fringes of the party. The centrist GOPs are still losing the battle against the Tea Party wing. Until that stops the democrats should be able to win.

[Coach]

Not being able to run for President more than twice is so dumb.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by troutman

Bill Maher could not persuade Elizabeth Warren to run with a $1 M contribution.

What's her long-term goal?

maybe VP?

[DuffMan]

NASHVILLE -- A bill seeking to make the Bible the official book of Tennessee would violate separation of church and state provisions in the federal and state constitutions, state Attorney General Herbert Slatery said in a legal opinion Monday.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/l...e-book/298481/