EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4154
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
micronesia
United States24770 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22298 Posts
On March 05 2024 08:22 brian wrote: States rights has never been a thing Republicans actually believe in, they say it but they never meant it. i don’t strongly disagree with the opinion but a very strong rationale for a lot of republican politics is states rights. of which, running the election is one of them. i think insane is a bit beyond the pale. When the federal government does something they don't agree with States rights gets thrown around as a means to defy the federal government but the moment Democrats states do something they don't agree with they want the federal government to step in. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26740 Posts
Too many conflicting things, sometimes you yearn for a bit of arbitrary, karmic kinda justice, make things simpler. In general I wholeheartedly disagree with excluding criminals from the democratic process. Kicking it to Congress to decide and well, we know from experience how that goes. Equally a singular state being able to defrock a candidate on a ballot potentially just gives a nuclear level trump card (pun intended) to play to tank a Presidential candidacy. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9204 Posts
On March 05 2024 08:25 micronesia wrote: I was reading some analysis earlier today that the ruling probably makes sense until you actually read the basis and implications, based on how everything was worded. Perhaps Trump should appear on the relevant ballots tomorrow... but what is the right way to stop him from becoming president if he actually did cross the threshold per the 14th Amendment? SCOTUS did not have a good answer, as spelled out by a predictable group of three members who wrote an opposing view of the majority despite agreeing with the ruling itself. What's the right way of stopping a 25 year old from becoming president? Would they be allowed to appear on primary ballots? I wouldn't assume so. This should be no different. My issue with disqualifying Trump is that he hasn't actually been convicted of insurrection. If that's not a requirement, well.. it would just lead to a partisan arms race of disqualifications. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26740 Posts
On March 05 2024 08:42 Dan HH wrote: What's the right way of stopping a 25 year old from becoming president? Would they be allowed to appear on primary ballots? I wouldn't assume so. This should be no different. My issue with disqualifying Trump is that he hasn't actually been convicted of insurrection. If that's not a requirement, well.. it would just lead to a partisan arms race of disqualifications. Aye but the additional problem is he’s essentially unconvictible of insurrection, least at the Congress level. Additionally age requirement seems to me just ridiculously arbitrary, especially in the absence of a ‘too old’ stipulation. You can be an obvious crook fine, you can be borderline, or even over the border into senility no problem, but you’re 34? Fuck off! And I’m not biased on account of being 34 myself :p | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45744 Posts
(Fun fact: Nikki Haley technically won Washington D.C.'s Republican primary over Trump two days ago, and Trump *flipped* out, insisting that he was the actual winner, and that Haley is a "loser" and a "birdbrain".) | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23919 Posts
On March 06 2024 03:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Today is Super Tuesday, where Biden and Trump will win plenty of additional state delegates in their respective primaries. I'm not expecting anything interesting to happen with the votes. Biden has been consistently winning 90+% of the Democratic vote, and Trump has been consistently winning 50-70% of the Republican vote. (Fun fact: Nikki Haley technically won Washington D.C.'s Republican primary over Trump two days ago, and Trump *flipped* out, insisting that he was the actual winner, and that Haley is a "loser" and a "birdbrain".) Michigan - 81% Nevada - 89% South Carolina - 96% New Hampshire - 64% What would you say if one of your students tried show you those numbers and tell you "Biden has been consistently winning 90+% of the Democratic vote"? | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2605 Posts
On March 05 2024 08:42 Dan HH wrote: What's the right way of stopping a 25 year old from becoming president? Would they be allowed to appear on primary ballots? I wouldn't assume so. This should be no different. My issue with disqualifying Trump is that he hasn't actually been convicted of insurrection. If that's not a requirement, well.. it would just lead to a partisan arms race of disqualifications. There is, quite conveniently, a federal crime of insurrection, but Trump hasn't been charged of it. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45744 Posts
On March 06 2024 07:19 GreenHorizons wrote: Michigan - 81% Nevada - 89% South Carolina - 96% New Hampshire - 64% What would you say if one of your students tried show you those numbers and tell you "Biden has been consistently winning 90+% of the Democratic vote"? I apologize; consistently 80s and 90s. Feel free to include all of the primaries that Biden won today... which are still mostly 80s and 90s. Trump's wins today were mostly in the 60s and 70s. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45744 Posts
Plus he's won 99.6% of the available delegates so far lol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Candidates | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2605 Posts
On March 06 2024 13:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Plus he's won 99.6% of the available delegates so far lol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Candidates That's a pretty pointless metric though, for a system that is designed to entrench the incumbent. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45744 Posts
On March 06 2024 14:08 gobbledydook wrote: That's a pretty pointless metric though, for a system that is designed to entrench the incumbent. Does that mean you believe that the primary is designed to provide an unfair advantage for the incumbent? What advantage? My understanding is that supporting the incumbent is generally seen as a wise and unifying party strategy, but that's different than the suggestion that the primary is rigged in favor of the incumbent, by design. And Biden and Trump are both seen as incumbents in their respective primaries. Thankfully, Trump isn't receiving 99% of the delegates in the Republican primary. Of course, that could just mean that Haley is a better Republican primary opponent than the negligible Democratic primary opponents of Biden. I wonder what percent of Haley supporters won't vote for Trump in the general election. It could also mean that there's more dissension and disagreement among Republican primary voters than Democratic primary voters. So far, early general election polling slightly favors Trump over Biden, yet the primary results could be interpreted as favoring Biden. Of course, the primary isn't the same thing as the general election, when both sides will finally vote against each other, and we'll see how the next 8 months play out, but I think it's interesting to see how different criteria are already lining up to show that either candidate definitely has a shot at winning the presidency. | ||
FlaShFTW
United States10391 Posts
The "Uncommitted" voter block need to stop pretending like their protest vote is actually doing anything and thinking it scares Democrats. Also, as DarkPlasmaball said, polls are in March. They're meaningless right now. Who cares. Polls this far out do not project a winner. Only projections happen as votes are counted on Tuesday/Wednesday of election night. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2701 Posts
On March 07 2024 01:10 FlaShFTW wrote: Biden is currently only down about 5% compared to Obama's percentage vote in their respective primaries. Compare this to Trump who won 94% of his primary vote in 2020 to his now 64%, but somehow Biden is the one in trouble by the general consensus... yeah, ok. The "Uncommitted" voter block need to stop pretending like their protest vote is actually doing anything and thinking it scares Democrats. Also, as DarkPlasmaball said, polls are in March. They're meaningless right now. Who cares. Polls this far out do not project a winner. Only projections happen as votes are counted on Tuesday/Wednesday of election night. They do? Why do they 'need to stop pretending'? Does their vote do some kind of harm to the overall structure? Generally I'm very wary of things that suggest voters need to not signal their opinion on something and instead just fall in line and suck it up. Besides, it never was intended as a terrorist 'we're going to tank our own party if you don't do something about israel', it was to signal that it is something his constituency cares strongly about. The protest vote not doing anything just further points to american voters being powerless. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4945 Posts
But in different and good news Katie Porter will be out of Congress entirely after this year, so that's a plus. The downside is the clown Schiff will be a senator, but at this point that's normal here in CA. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45744 Posts
On March 07 2024 04:38 JimmiC wrote: I'm with you, I think protest vote in the primary is exactly where it should happen. Then in the general you hold your nose and vote with who you think will be best for the country. Agreed. Primary = vote with your heart. General = vote with your head. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23919 Posts
On March 06 2024 13:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I apologize; consistently 80s and 90s. Feel free to include all of the primaries that Biden won today... which are still mostly 80s and 90s. Trump's wins today were mostly in the 60s and 70s. That sounds more like the student somewhat sarcastically attempting to get some points back after getting marked incorrect. On March 07 2024 01:10 FlaShFTW wrote: Biden is currently only down about 5% compared to Obama's percentage vote in their respective primaries. Compare this to Trump who won 94% of his primary vote in 2020 to his now 64%, but somehow Biden is the one in trouble by the general consensus... yeah, ok. The "Uncommitted" voter block need to stop pretending like their protest vote is actually doing anything and thinking it scares Democrats. Also, as DarkPlasmaball said, polls are in March. They're meaningless right now. Who cares. Polls this far out do not project a winner. Only projections happen as votes are counted on Tuesday/Wednesday of election night. Obama lost ~3,500,000 votes, while Biden can't afford to do that. This whole line of thinking around primary results is straight up copium because it's basically the only statistic that can be remotely reasonably spun (provided one shuts off enough of their critical thinking skills) as positive for Biden. Biden's getting about 83% of Democrat primary voters (which is a lot less actual voters than he got in 2016) compared to Trump's 94% as an incumbent that lost. Democrats have never gotten more votes for their next presidential term than they did their first. No president has ever won reelection with such high disapproval ratings at this point in their presidency. He's behind in the national poll averages.He's polling behind Trump in every battleground state except Pennsylvania. The odds are against him and so on. The polls themselves (particularly individual ones as opposed to averages for months) aren't especially useful, but we have the rare opportunity to juxtapose them with polls from the same points of the same race with the same 2 contestants. When we do, we don't just see that Biden is losing, he's losing a lot worse (~5-10% worse for months) than he was at this point when he barely eked out a win. This is particularly important in Michigan. You're right about Democrats ignoring the uncommitted voters and Biden even ignoring a soldier under his command setting himself on fire in protest of Biden's unconscionable complicity in genocide. The sad fact is that a large majority of Democrats/their supporters are willfully complicit in genocide and are more offended/upset by being confronted with that than they are with their demanded complicity. Biden is obviously in trouble by basically every traditional metric (hence the desperate reaching for this primary stuff) and the stubborn refusal by his supporters to recognize it may be a critical component in their downfall. Only a handful of primaries have even been in states the Democrats have any hope of winning and 2 that are in contention (NV and MI). The tea leaf reading about them is just copium to stave off facts like no president ever winning reelection with such high unfavorables while Trump's unfavorables are better than Biden's now and at this point in his presidency. That's not to say it's over and Trump won, just that Biden is running behind Trump now and himself in 2016. That should be far more concerning for Democrats/their supporters than it currently is. It currently sounds like they are going to wait until it is far too late to course correct and then do the typical "who could have seen this coming (other than the people we willfully ignore, berate, and ultimately blame)" thing that US politics does. | ||
| ||
