EPTHarris is going to be the nominee, whether we like it or not.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4292
| 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 | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46514 Posts
Harris is going to be the nominee, whether we like it or not. | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16126 Posts
On July 22 2024 05:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Bill and Hillary Clinton also endorsed Kamala Harris, following Biden's lead. Harris is going to be the nominee, whether we like it or not. Yea because Bill and Hillary Clinton are so obviously in tune with what the voters want. Their endorsement should carry a WHOLE lot of credibility lol. If Bill and Hillary Clinton had the kind of support they think they have we wouldn't have a stacked Conservative court because the Democrats would have won in 2016. If anything, the fact that those two are endorsing her is exactly why she shouldn't get the nomination. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46514 Posts
On July 22 2024 05:58 Vindicare605 wrote: Yea because Bill and Hillary Clinton are so obviously in tune with what the voters want. Their endorsement should carry a WHOLE lot of credibility lol. If Bill and Hillary Clinton had the kind of support they think they have we wouldn't have a stacked Conservative court because the Democrats would have won in 2016. If anything, the fact that those two are endorsing her is exactly why she shouldn't get the nomination. I'm not disputing whether or not Harris deserves the nomination or should get the nomination. I'm asserting that she's going to be the nominee. It's going to be Harris vs. Trump. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom10011 Posts
The Democrats are giving America to Trump. Idiots. How fucking depressing. | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16126 Posts
On July 22 2024 05:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I'm not disputing whether or not Harris deserves the nomination or should get the nomination. I'm asserting that she's going to be the nominee. It's going to be Harris vs. Trump. I know DPB. I'm just venting. Donald Trump is going to win this election, and just like 2016 it's going to be because the Democratic elites are going to try and force their will on their party rather than trying to run a fair election that actually listens to their constituents. They don't deserve the power of the executive branch. In any decent Democracy they would be as far away from the levers of power as the Republicans would be, except we live in our dysfunctional Republic where they are the lesser of two evils. It's fucking sickening. | ||
|
Oukka
Finland1683 Posts
In a 'normal' year, getting someone new would be fine because they are campaigning for 18+ months, from the speculations before primaries all the way down to the election date. Now Dems have ~4 months to get someone, so who else should they go for than the most obvious person with the highest national recognition? | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16126 Posts
On July 22 2024 06:05 Oukka wrote: Who else? I asked this when the calls for Biden to step down started, and I've still not seen an answer. I still think Biden was the best shot, and Harris is likely the second best shot. In a 'normal' year, getting someone new would be fine because they are campaigning for 18+ months, from the speculations before primaries all the way down to the election date. Now Dems have ~4 months to get someone, so who else should they go for than the most obvious person with the highest national recognition? Run an actual primary and find out. If Harris is going to be the nominee because there is "no one else" then at least PRETEND like you are honoring the spirit of the constitution by having her elected even if it's in a rushed primary. Give someone else, ANYONE else a chance to stand up and say they also want the job. Because I'd be happy to support almost anyone else other than her, and if she got the nomination anyway at least I could feel better about voting for her knowing she actually got the nomination in something resembling a fair way. The way it's set up now. If she gets the nomination without a primary the Democrats are going to lose the biggest election issue they have right now in the general election. They can no longer say they are the party that values Democracy. If they give that election issue up, Donald Trump will win this election. I have no doubt about it in my mind. | ||
micronesia
United States24805 Posts
On July 22 2024 06:10 Vindicare605 wrote: Run an actual primary and find out. If Harris is going to be the nominee because there is "no one else" then at least PRETEND like you are honoring the spirit of the constitution by having her elected even if it's in a rushed primary. Although I agree a full-on vote makes sense, I'll note that there's probably nothing constitutional about your argument. It's only in the last few decades that voters are even given the illusion of picking the party nominee. | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16126 Posts
On July 22 2024 06:13 micronesia wrote: Although I agree a full-on vote makes sense, I'll note that there's probably nothing constitutional about your argument. It's only in the last few decades that voters are even given the illusion of picking the party nominee. I know that. But do you really want to make that semantics argument to the American people in front of Donald Trump who has been spouting for 8 years about how rigged the electoral process is? Do you think the Democrats can win that way? I don't. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On July 22 2024 06:05 Oukka wrote: Who else? I asked this when the calls for Biden to step down started, and I've still not seen an answer. I still think Biden was the best shot, and Harris is likely the second best shot. In a 'normal' year, getting someone new would be fine because they are campaigning for 18+ months, from the speculations before primaries all the way down to the election date. Now Dems have ~4 months to get someone, so who else should they go for than the most obvious person with the highest national recognition? You shouldn’t really need 18 months, we’ve had snap elections in the likes of the UK and France recently with way less lead-in time than we still have for this Presidential race. Ok there are important systematic differences too to factor in. It’s not an ideal situation by any means, but I mean you can’t run some kinda primary with 4 months to play with? It may be a bit chaotic but I feel the benefits you get optically from democratising the candidacy probably outweigh that. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24805 Posts
On July 22 2024 06:15 Vindicare605 wrote: I know that. But do you really want to make that semantics argument to the American people in front of Donald Trump who has been spouting for 8 years about how rigged the electoral process is? Do you think the Democrats can win that way? I don't. I want to stick to the facts about what the constitution does or doesn't say/suggest. This thread isn't a political advertisement for the masses—it's a discussion between people who shouldn't want to be spoon-fed propaganda about how what the DNC is doing is against the spirit of the constitution. | ||
|
riotjune
United States3394 Posts
I mean I'm all for punishing the Democrats' malicious incompetence (bunch of fucking morons), but I rather not do it by letting Trump win in November. I guess it's a question of choosing whether to punish somebody who clearly deserves it, or saving someone just, and I'd choose the latter every time (the reckoning could always come later I guess). | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom10011 Posts
On July 22 2024 06:20 micronesia wrote: I want to stick to the facts about what the constitution does or doesn't say/suggest. This thread isn't a political advertisement for the masses—it's a discussion between people who shouldn't want to be spoon-fed propaganda about how what the DNC is doing is against the spirit of the constitution. Its not against the spirit of the constitution, you're right. Its really stupid though. She's unpopular and the messaging from the Dems is 'yeah but we know best'. That's not going to play well in today's political climate, I think. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46514 Posts
On July 22 2024 06:10 Vindicare605 wrote: Run an actual primary and find out. If Harris is going to be the nominee because there is "no one else" then at least PRETEND like you are honoring the spirit of the constitution by having her elected even if it's in a rushed primary. Give someone else, ANYONE else a chance to stand up and say they also want the job. Because I'd be happy to support almost anyone else other than her, and if she got the nomination anyway at least I could feel better about voting for her knowing she actually got the nomination in something resembling a fair way. The way it's set up now. If she gets the nomination without a primary the Democrats are going to lose the biggest election issue they have right now in the general election. They can no longer say they are the party that values Democracy. If they give that election issue up, Donald Trump will win this election. I have no doubt about it in my mind. I agree with you that an open primary - where Democratic voters could vote and pick the nominee - would probably make more people feel at ease in voting for the eventual nominee in November, whether it's Harris or someone else. | ||
|
mierin
United States4943 Posts
On July 22 2024 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote: Poll: Democrats Should... You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ Fall in line behind Harris Poll: If there is a contest the nominee should be... You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ K. Harris Doesn't matter, they're going to lose and Gretchen Whitmer are my answers | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46514 Posts
| ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2836 Posts
On July 22 2024 06:20 micronesia wrote: I want to stick to the facts about what the constitution does or doesn't say/suggest. This thread isn't a political advertisement for the masses—it's a discussion between people who shouldn't want to be spoon-fed propaganda about how what the DNC is doing is against the spirit of the constitution. Isn't the constitution a bigass document that literally starts "We the people..." ? Surely you could make an argument that holding a vote would follow that exact spirit. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7328 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom10011 Posts
On July 22 2024 07:45 Sadist wrote: Any time i hear or see the word "elites" i instantly roll my eyes. Who are these nebulous "elites"? Its just is a boogeyman populist talking point. I feel like its straight out of a joe rogan or steve bannon tik tok. From https://www.populismstudies.org/Vocabulary/the-elite/ ‘The elite’ are a small group of powerful people who hold a disproportionate amount of wealth, privilege, political power, or skill in a society. Defined by the Cambridge Dictionary, the elite are “those people or organizations that are considered the best or most powerful compared to others of a similar type.” American sociologist Charles Wright Mills states that the power elite members recognize other members’ mutual exalted position in society. “As a rule, ‘they accept one another, understand one another, marry one another, tend to work, and to think, if not together at least alike’,” he adds. This is a generally accepted term for these kinds of people. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7328 Posts
Its just handwaving nonsense. | ||
| ||
