|
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 |
On July 22 2024 19:38 Harris1st wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2024 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 22 2024 18:39 Harris1st wrote:
Dems now should be spinning the story that everytime Trump says something gibberish, that he's too old and senile. Covfefe! Congrats, by the way, on officially having the most politically-relevant TL username for this election, at least from the Democratic side  Thank you thank you. Been waiting for this moment my whole life! Show nested quote +On July 22 2024 19:36 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Tbh they were largely doing that, at least the pro-democrat comedians who make up a portion of their mediasphere. The story there was - yes Biden is old and makes gaffes but Trump is almost equally old and makes an equal amount of gaffes, followed by a clip of trump saying something stupid.
And it kinda worked until the debate, but the debate made it absolutely clear that Trump is far more capable of speaking without a script. The story these past months/years has basically been: Republican media/people on social media claim Biden is senile, followed by a clip showing that he seemingly is. Someof these have even been fabricated i think. Democrat-leaning supporters/media claim it is less bad than what Republicans claim, and that Trump is no better. Then SOTU happens and Biden vastly outperforms expectations and democrat-leaning people go 'see? He's not so bad, and even Republicans realize that he's more there that they claimed he was. Leading up to the debate, Trump is actually building up Biden, saying he is a competent debater who will show up very prepared.
Then the debate happens and it is a complete absolute disaster impossible to defend or justify. Biden has multiple occasions of 'this is worse than Rick Perry forgetting which agency he wants to disband'. It is, without question, the single worst debate performance I've ever seen, by a significant margin, and this type of setting is actually more important than a SOTU-type setting. A president must be able to respond in real time, not just be able to present a prepared statement.
It's very disappointing that this realization is two years late, but it is what it is. I understand even just going with Kamala and everyone backing her, might be better than having a fracturing struggle without time to heal after. Either way going with Biden was increasingly impossible - the debate was too much of a catastrophe, and nothing indicates that Biden would've been able to have a much better performance in a similar setting in the future. But having Kamala do these sorts of interviews/ discussion/ duels now should be leaning heavily in favor of Dems now right? I mean she was Attorney General for 6 six years and should be good at this
She is, but it's definitively going to be an uphill battle, as being well-spoken and articulate, knowing wtf you're talking about, and not talking endless bullshit, doesn't seem to be what most people value these days. It's a cult vs cult conundrum, and Kamala is seen by a lot of people as part of the wrong/bad side for having been attorney general. For instance, despite being a black person running against a genuine racist, she does not have the majority black voters of the country supporting her.
|
On July 22 2024 20:52 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2024 19:38 Harris1st wrote:
But having Kamala do these sorts of interviews/ discussion/ duels now should be leaning heavily in favor of Dems now right? I mean she was Attorney General for 6 six years and should be good at this She'll be a stronger debater than Biden's corpse, for sure, but she's been surprisingly weak at the more conventional, inspirational SOTU type events. She struggles to project genuine warmth and she has to thread the needle that all women run into where she can't be too maternal or she's not taken seriously, and can't be too hardass or she's a bitch. And Trump's not stupid, he knows this. I strongly doubt he'll even risk another debate, especially if Harris looks strong there. He has a kernel of truth to spin whatever excuses he needs, and he's already proven himself on the stage so there's less to gain from a rematch. Imo he'll do a full 180 and start stanning for Joe. Refuse to legitimise her, claim Biden was the rightful nominee and that this is proof of the deep state eating itself in its desperation. Hell I wouldn't even be surprised if a couple of groups pop up trying to drum up a write-in campaign for poor old Joe. It could shave half a percent from what's left of the never trumpers, and they're pretty much the only swing voters left on the field anyway.
Bolded - I am pretty sure this is exactly what he will do, especially that this will go to counter "Trump is a threat to Democracy" line. It is easy to imagine him saying: "they saying I am going to destroy democracy, but look at what they doing". Considering that this isnt as much election between 2 candidates, but rather for and against Trump, it may have devastating consequences for Democrats.
|
On July 22 2024 20:56 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2024 19:38 Harris1st wrote:On July 22 2024 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 22 2024 18:39 Harris1st wrote:
Dems now should be spinning the story that everytime Trump says something gibberish, that he's too old and senile. Covfefe! Congrats, by the way, on officially having the most politically-relevant TL username for this election, at least from the Democratic side Thank you thank you. Been waiting for this moment my whole life! On July 22 2024 19:36 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Tbh they were largely doing that, at least the pro-democrat comedians who make up a portion of their mediasphere. The story there was - yes Biden is old and makes gaffes but Trump is almost equally old and makes an equal amount of gaffes, followed by a clip of trump saying something stupid.
And it kinda worked until the debate, but the debate made it absolutely clear that Trump is far more capable of speaking without a script. The story these past months/years has basically been: Republican media/people on social media claim Biden is senile, followed by a clip showing that he seemingly is. Someof these have even been fabricated i think. Democrat-leaning supporters/media claim it is less bad than what Republicans claim, and that Trump is no better. Then SOTU happens and Biden vastly outperforms expectations and democrat-leaning people go 'see? He's not so bad, and even Republicans realize that he's more there that they claimed he was. Leading up to the debate, Trump is actually building up Biden, saying he is a competent debater who will show up very prepared.
Then the debate happens and it is a complete absolute disaster impossible to defend or justify. Biden has multiple occasions of 'this is worse than Rick Perry forgetting which agency he wants to disband'. It is, without question, the single worst debate performance I've ever seen, by a significant margin, and this type of setting is actually more important than a SOTU-type setting. A president must be able to respond in real time, not just be able to present a prepared statement.
It's very disappointing that this realization is two years late, but it is what it is. I understand even just going with Kamala and everyone backing her, might be better than having a fracturing struggle without time to heal after. Either way going with Biden was increasingly impossible - the debate was too much of a catastrophe, and nothing indicates that Biden would've been able to have a much better performance in a similar setting in the future. But having Kamala do these sorts of interviews/ discussion/ duels now should be leaning heavily in favor of Dems now right? I mean she was Attorney General for 6 six years and should be good at this She is, but it's definitively going to be an uphill battle, as being well-spoken and articulate, knowing wtf you're talking about, and not talking endless bullshit, doesn't seem to be what most people value these days. It's a cult vs cult conundrum, and Kamala is seen by a lot of people as part of the wrong/bad side for having been attorney general. For instance, despite being a black person running against a genuine racist, she does not have the majority black voters of the country supporting her.
Kamala Harris, and Democrats in general, definitely poll better with the majority of black voters than Trump/Republicans do.
There is also an incredible irony that the Republican party "of law and order" is running a convicted felon against a district attorney.
|
My take on conservative lizzard brains is that they will accuse anyone and everything on the most vile, foul, egocentric behavior they can imagine (because they'd do it themselves) .. and for PR they mix it with a good dose of whacky conspiracy.
For example:
More minimum wage? "Then people would work less, and everyhing will cost more!...pull yourself up by the bootstraps and less avocadotoast, so you can afford that $2500 1 bedroom apartment and a car you get to work in to work for $7,25"
With a powerful old man giving up power.. this baffles the lizzard brains for a short time.
They need to find a take now. Has "Best economic christian President ever Joseph Biden" been replaced by the Deep State bureaucracy? The adenochrome harvesting megadonors? Is that DEI swamp takeover?
|
On July 22 2024 08:48 Sadist wrote:
Who are the democratic elite?
Its just handwaving nonsense.
What? That's just untrue. It's all the unelected, yet highly influential people either directly in government or nested in the corporate-governmental system. You can argue whether this is a problem or not, but you can't argue they don't exist or that they exist but aren't influential.
|
On July 22 2024 23:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2024 20:56 Excludos wrote:On July 22 2024 19:38 Harris1st wrote:On July 22 2024 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 22 2024 18:39 Harris1st wrote:
Dems now should be spinning the story that everytime Trump says something gibberish, that he's too old and senile. Covfefe! Congrats, by the way, on officially having the most politically-relevant TL username for this election, at least from the Democratic side Thank you thank you. Been waiting for this moment my whole life! On July 22 2024 19:36 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Tbh they were largely doing that, at least the pro-democrat comedians who make up a portion of their mediasphere. The story there was - yes Biden is old and makes gaffes but Trump is almost equally old and makes an equal amount of gaffes, followed by a clip of trump saying something stupid.
And it kinda worked until the debate, but the debate made it absolutely clear that Trump is far more capable of speaking without a script. The story these past months/years has basically been: Republican media/people on social media claim Biden is senile, followed by a clip showing that he seemingly is. Someof these have even been fabricated i think. Democrat-leaning supporters/media claim it is less bad than what Republicans claim, and that Trump is no better. Then SOTU happens and Biden vastly outperforms expectations and democrat-leaning people go 'see? He's not so bad, and even Republicans realize that he's more there that they claimed he was. Leading up to the debate, Trump is actually building up Biden, saying he is a competent debater who will show up very prepared.
Then the debate happens and it is a complete absolute disaster impossible to defend or justify. Biden has multiple occasions of 'this is worse than Rick Perry forgetting which agency he wants to disband'. It is, without question, the single worst debate performance I've ever seen, by a significant margin, and this type of setting is actually more important than a SOTU-type setting. A president must be able to respond in real time, not just be able to present a prepared statement.
It's very disappointing that this realization is two years late, but it is what it is. I understand even just going with Kamala and everyone backing her, might be better than having a fracturing struggle without time to heal after. Either way going with Biden was increasingly impossible - the debate was too much of a catastrophe, and nothing indicates that Biden would've been able to have a much better performance in a similar setting in the future. But having Kamala do these sorts of interviews/ discussion/ duels now should be leaning heavily in favor of Dems now right? I mean she was Attorney General for 6 six years and should be good at this She is, but it's definitively going to be an uphill battle, as being well-spoken and articulate, knowing wtf you're talking about, and not talking endless bullshit, doesn't seem to be what most people value these days. It's a cult vs cult conundrum, and Kamala is seen by a lot of people as part of the wrong/bad side for having been attorney general. For instance, despite being a black person running against a genuine racist, she does not have the majority black voters of the country supporting her. Kamala Harris, and Democrats in general, definitely poll better with the majority of black voters than Trump/Republicans do. There is also an incredible irony that the Republican party "of law and order" is running a convicted felon against a district attorney.
Well, it's not really ironic at all beyond the surface level observation, right? Republicans do not view Trump's conviction as legitimate. Meanwhile the Dems are anti-anti-crime (which is why some on the right may call them pro-crime) and are backing a district attorney, so yeah.
|
On July 22 2024 23:24 TentativePanda wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2024 23:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 22 2024 20:56 Excludos wrote:On July 22 2024 19:38 Harris1st wrote:On July 22 2024 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 22 2024 18:39 Harris1st wrote:
Dems now should be spinning the story that everytime Trump says something gibberish, that he's too old and senile. Covfefe! Congrats, by the way, on officially having the most politically-relevant TL username for this election, at least from the Democratic side Thank you thank you. Been waiting for this moment my whole life! On July 22 2024 19:36 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Tbh they were largely doing that, at least the pro-democrat comedians who make up a portion of their mediasphere. The story there was - yes Biden is old and makes gaffes but Trump is almost equally old and makes an equal amount of gaffes, followed by a clip of trump saying something stupid.
And it kinda worked until the debate, but the debate made it absolutely clear that Trump is far more capable of speaking without a script. The story these past months/years has basically been: Republican media/people on social media claim Biden is senile, followed by a clip showing that he seemingly is. Someof these have even been fabricated i think. Democrat-leaning supporters/media claim it is less bad than what Republicans claim, and that Trump is no better. Then SOTU happens and Biden vastly outperforms expectations and democrat-leaning people go 'see? He's not so bad, and even Republicans realize that he's more there that they claimed he was. Leading up to the debate, Trump is actually building up Biden, saying he is a competent debater who will show up very prepared.
Then the debate happens and it is a complete absolute disaster impossible to defend or justify. Biden has multiple occasions of 'this is worse than Rick Perry forgetting which agency he wants to disband'. It is, without question, the single worst debate performance I've ever seen, by a significant margin, and this type of setting is actually more important than a SOTU-type setting. A president must be able to respond in real time, not just be able to present a prepared statement.
It's very disappointing that this realization is two years late, but it is what it is. I understand even just going with Kamala and everyone backing her, might be better than having a fracturing struggle without time to heal after. Either way going with Biden was increasingly impossible - the debate was too much of a catastrophe, and nothing indicates that Biden would've been able to have a much better performance in a similar setting in the future. But having Kamala do these sorts of interviews/ discussion/ duels now should be leaning heavily in favor of Dems now right? I mean she was Attorney General for 6 six years and should be good at this She is, but it's definitively going to be an uphill battle, as being well-spoken and articulate, knowing wtf you're talking about, and not talking endless bullshit, doesn't seem to be what most people value these days. It's a cult vs cult conundrum, and Kamala is seen by a lot of people as part of the wrong/bad side for having been attorney general. For instance, despite being a black person running against a genuine racist, she does not have the majority black voters of the country supporting her. Kamala Harris, and Democrats in general, definitely poll better with the majority of black voters than Trump/Republicans do. There is also an incredible irony that the Republican party "of law and order" is running a convicted felon against a district attorney. Well, it's not really ironic at all beyond the surface level observation, right? Republicans do not view Trump's conviction as legitimate. Meanwhile the Dems are anti-anti-crime (which is why some on the right may call them pro-crime) and are backing a district attorney, so yeah.
I suppose it's not ironic to someone who rejects the reality that Trump is literally a criminal, sure.
|
On July 22 2024 23:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2024 23:24 TentativePanda wrote:On July 22 2024 23:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 22 2024 20:56 Excludos wrote:On July 22 2024 19:38 Harris1st wrote:On July 22 2024 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 22 2024 18:39 Harris1st wrote:
Dems now should be spinning the story that everytime Trump says something gibberish, that he's too old and senile. Covfefe! Congrats, by the way, on officially having the most politically-relevant TL username for this election, at least from the Democratic side Thank you thank you. Been waiting for this moment my whole life! On July 22 2024 19:36 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Tbh they were largely doing that, at least the pro-democrat comedians who make up a portion of their mediasphere. The story there was - yes Biden is old and makes gaffes but Trump is almost equally old and makes an equal amount of gaffes, followed by a clip of trump saying something stupid.
And it kinda worked until the debate, but the debate made it absolutely clear that Trump is far more capable of speaking without a script. The story these past months/years has basically been: Republican media/people on social media claim Biden is senile, followed by a clip showing that he seemingly is. Someof these have even been fabricated i think. Democrat-leaning supporters/media claim it is less bad than what Republicans claim, and that Trump is no better. Then SOTU happens and Biden vastly outperforms expectations and democrat-leaning people go 'see? He's not so bad, and even Republicans realize that he's more there that they claimed he was. Leading up to the debate, Trump is actually building up Biden, saying he is a competent debater who will show up very prepared.
Then the debate happens and it is a complete absolute disaster impossible to defend or justify. Biden has multiple occasions of 'this is worse than Rick Perry forgetting which agency he wants to disband'. It is, without question, the single worst debate performance I've ever seen, by a significant margin, and this type of setting is actually more important than a SOTU-type setting. A president must be able to respond in real time, not just be able to present a prepared statement.
It's very disappointing that this realization is two years late, but it is what it is. I understand even just going with Kamala and everyone backing her, might be better than having a fracturing struggle without time to heal after. Either way going with Biden was increasingly impossible - the debate was too much of a catastrophe, and nothing indicates that Biden would've been able to have a much better performance in a similar setting in the future. But having Kamala do these sorts of interviews/ discussion/ duels now should be leaning heavily in favor of Dems now right? I mean she was Attorney General for 6 six years and should be good at this She is, but it's definitively going to be an uphill battle, as being well-spoken and articulate, knowing wtf you're talking about, and not talking endless bullshit, doesn't seem to be what most people value these days. It's a cult vs cult conundrum, and Kamala is seen by a lot of people as part of the wrong/bad side for having been attorney general. For instance, despite being a black person running against a genuine racist, she does not have the majority black voters of the country supporting her. Kamala Harris, and Democrats in general, definitely poll better with the majority of black voters than Trump/Republicans do. There is also an incredible irony that the Republican party "of law and order" is running a convicted felon against a district attorney. Well, it's not really ironic at all beyond the surface level observation, right? Republicans do not view Trump's conviction as legitimate. Meanwhile the Dems are anti-anti-crime (which is why some on the right may call them pro-crime) and are backing a district attorney, so yeah. I suppose it's not ironic to someone who rejects the reality that Trump is literally a criminal, sure.
yep that's my point
|
Poverty is the mother of all crime.
Some cities found that it's actually cheaper to let people steal than to provide more police, more judges, more jails, since "law and order tactics" have simply no effect on people that have nothing to lose.
This had the side effect that shops are locking stuff up..or closing alltogehter.. making people realize that it's well past time to leave the area.
A stronger police presence would cost millions of dollars.. and won't cure the reason for ciminal behavior: poverty.
So I think the german way: Just pay everyone an minimum amount of money that allows to exist within the law and parttake in society.. would be the better way.
Of course.. this just raises the level of working or out of work poverty from starving and homelessness to living in a paid for appartment, and having ~500€ to spent every month with paid for health insurance.
Businesses and landlords still make a profit off the people receiving "basic aid"... and it's paid for through their taxes.
So "law and order" vs. "Anti-Anti-Crime" is a pretty one dimensional approach to a more complex, multidimensional problem.
|
United States41470 Posts
On July 22 2024 23:51 KT_Elwood wrote:
Poverty is the mother of all crime.
Counterpoint, Trump.
|
On July 22 2024 23:19 TentativePanda wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2024 08:48 Sadist wrote:
Who are the democratic elite?
Its just handwaving nonsense.
What? That's just untrue. It's all the unelected, yet highly influential people either directly in government or nested in the corporate-governmental system. You can argue whether this is a problem or not, but you can't argue they don't exist or that they exist but aren't influential.
Im saying who are these people? Nancy Pelosi? The DNC Chair? Chuck Schumer? Bill gates? George Soros? If people just say "elites" they never have to back up what they are saying so its difficult to refute. "Oh i wasnt talking about this person, i meant that other elite"
Its a stupid way to discuss things because theres no details. Its just like Trump or other politicians going with "people are saying" what people? Who is saying what? Its the same as the nebulous "they". "They planned all this you know" "they are out to get you" etc.
|
Kamala can barely put a working sentence together. She either has anxiety from severe imposter syndrome, which would be justified, or she has some kind of autism to explain the random cackling. I lean towards the former because she otherwise lacks competence and would want to cover it up that fact whether consciously or not, rightly so. Her amazing centrist appeal of tough-on-crime policy was bragging about jailing mothers of truant shitkids in crime-ridden San Francisco.
She had some reasonable moves as Senator but also got destroyed by Gabbard and should never have been near the WH to begin with. She has been "border czar" with a probably corrupt, or something else is wrong with Mayorkas, DHS, ignoring the border on an issue which 8 years of Trump has memed even moderates into realizing immigration is a huge issue - and Republicans win on it in opinion polls.
Kennedy correctly called out the fake primary that Vivek saw through very clearly also that Biden would never make it. Drumpf may now be in a position where he will have to have defeated 3 separate Democrats in a single election to retake the WH.
|
On July 23 2024 01:57 oBlade wrote:
Kamala can barely put a working sentence together. She either has anxiety from severe imposter syndrome, which would be justified, or she has some kind of autism to explain the random cackling. I lean towards the former because she otherwise lacks competence and would want to cover it up that fact whether consciously or not, rightly so. Her amazing centrist appeal of tough-on-crime policy was bragging about jailing mothers of truant shitkids in crime-ridden San Francisco.
She had some reasonable moves as Senator but also got destroyed by Gabbard and should never have been near the WH to begin with. She has been "border czar" with a probably corrupt, or something else is wrong with Mayorkas, DHS, ignoring the border on an issue which 8 years of Trump has memed even moderates into realizing immigration is a huge issue - and Republicans win on it in opinion polls.
Kennedy correctly called out the fake primary that Vivek saw through very clearly also that Biden would never make it. Drumpf may now be in a position where he will have to have defeated 3 separate Democrats in a single election to retake the WH.
Barely being able to put a sentence together puts her 3 levels above Trump and about 5 above Biden tbf.
|
On July 23 2024 01:57 oBlade wrote:
Kennedy correctly called out the fake primary that Vivek saw through very clearly also that Biden would never make it. Drumpf may now be in a position where he will have to have defeated 3 separate Democrats in a single election to retake the WH.
Fake primary? Neither party generally runs a free-for-all when they have the incumbency; that's nothing new.
Also, what do you mean by Trump "will have to have defeated 3 separate Democrats in a single election"? He only has to defeat one: Kamala Harris (or whoever the nominee ends up being, but I'm 99% sure it's going to be her). If three Democrats were all running against Trump in the general election, then that would make it easier for Trump to win, not harder, as the Democrats would hypothetically dilute themselves by splitting their votes into three smaller groups and gift the Republicans the plurality victory due to in-fighting.
|
Trump blowing his money on fighting Biden before he is the official candidate is hardly the Democrats problem lol
|
I gotta say, seeing so many oBlade-type conservatives incoherently whine about how it's unfair that Biden dropped out makes me more hopeful.
|
On July 23 2024 02:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2024 01:57 oBlade wrote:
Kennedy correctly called out the fake primary that Vivek saw through very clearly also that Biden would never make it. Drumpf may now be in a position where he will have to have defeated 3 separate Democrats in a single election to retake the WH. Fake primary? Neither party generally runs a free-for-all when they have the incumbency; that's nothing new.
You are a straight Democratic voter, right? And a regular follower of this thread, and consumer of political media, you can't now feign ignorance as to how the DNC altered rules as they went along to preclude anyone else's candidacy - namely Kennedy's - only because he's the one who protested by going so far as to run anyway as an independent - but also others.
"Generally" is not applicable when you have the exigent issue of the incumbent being a wantonly incompetent dementia patient with the physicality of a wind-up tin robot toy, that you personally told me less than a year ago was healthier and would outlive Drumpf because you read it on the internet. Just like it's unprecedented to take him out now after he won the uncontested primary, it would have been slightly more precedented to have an actual primary earlier, in addition to simply being far wiser. But that's for people who pay attention and don't sit with the world on autopilot.
On July 23 2024 02:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Also, what do you mean by Trump "will have to have defeated 3 separate Democrats in a single election
Biden, Kennedy, presumably Harris.
On July 23 2024 02:39 Gorsameth wrote:
Trump blowing his money on fighting Biden before he is the official candidate is hardly the Democrats problem lol
Was this addressed to anything or just a random thought you wanted to share?
If your idea is Drumpf spent all the GOP's money to knock Biden out of the race, so now there's a disadvantage to him, it's the opposite in terms of finances - the Drumpf side has raised more and spent less than the Democratic side in raw figures, and that's an issue for them as being the party of the people, they're supposed to have an enormous funding advantage - as an aside, 50% more was spent on Clinton than Drumpf in 2016. Being it's only July, they have a long way to catch up as they're handicapped by the fact that their presumptive nominee was not motivating to donors. The coffers are lacking.
The GOP side has nonetheless been spending money to elect their actual nominee, who is still their nominee and they will continue to do, so there's no starting from scratch or whatever you imagine.
On July 23 2024 02:53 Dan HH wrote:
I gotta say, seeing so many oBlade-type conservatives incoherently whine about how it's unfair that Biden dropped out makes me more hopeful.
1) "oBlade-type conservative" is not a thing in the world
2) You're hallucinating something I never said because you got Pavlovian trained by the echo chamber to do so.
It is patently unfair to your voters to try to drug your racehorse with amphetamines, tell them they can't have another horse, and then shoot it when it can't get out of the gate.
This both shits on Democratic primary voters who now get their alleged agency revoked, after they did exactly what they were told to do anyway, and any voters in open primary states who would like to have cast a vote to help nominate a Democratic candidate aligned with their views if they had taken the Republican primary result as a given. It also shits on the general election voter to now prop up Harris as an ascendancy. The VP becomes president when the president dies or resigns. But the running mate is not voted for in the primary at all, they're not on the ticket, they get named before the convention and just rubber stamped almost always by both parties.
|
On July 23 2024 02:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2024 01:57 oBlade wrote:
Kennedy correctly called out the fake primary that Vivek saw through very clearly also that Biden would never make it. Drumpf may now be in a position where he will have to have defeated 3 separate Democrats in a single election to retake the WH. Fake primary? Neither party generally runs a free-for-all when they have the incumbency; that's nothing new. + Show Spoiler +Also, what do you mean by Trump "will have to have defeated 3 separate Democrats in a single election"? He only has to defeat one: Kamala Harris (or whoever the nominee ends up being, but I'm 99% sure it's going to be her). If three Democrats were all running against Trump in the general election, then that would make it easier for Trump to win, not harder, as the Democrats would hypothetically dilute themselves by splitting their votes into three smaller groups and gift the Republicans the plurality victory due to in-fighting.
There were plenty of reasons for that not to apply to Biden, but I'm curious if you think that'll apply to Harris if she wins?
|
On July 23 2024 02:53 Dan HH wrote:
I gotta say, seeing so many oBlade-type conservatives incoherently whine about how it's unfair that Biden dropped out makes me more hopeful.
I couldn't help but roll my eyes when oBlade said "Kamala can barely put a working sentence together." They're gonna need some new material; copy/pasting the accusations that only apply to Biden and Trump aren't really gonna work against Harris. Luckily for Republicans, the Democrats have made some legitimate anti-Harris points in the past that can be borrowed, and Republicans are no stranger to simply being racist and sexist if all else fails.
|
On July 23 2024 03:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2024 02:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 23 2024 01:57 oBlade wrote:
Kennedy correctly called out the fake primary that Vivek saw through very clearly also that Biden would never make it. Drumpf may now be in a position where he will have to have defeated 3 separate Democrats in a single election to retake the WH. Fake primary? Neither party generally runs a free-for-all when they have the incumbency; that's nothing new. + Show Spoiler +Also, what do you mean by Trump "will have to have defeated 3 separate Democrats in a single election"? He only has to defeat one: Kamala Harris (or whoever the nominee ends up being, but I'm 99% sure it's going to be her). If three Democrats were all running against Trump in the general election, then that would make it easier for Trump to win, not harder, as the Democrats would hypothetically dilute themselves by splitting their votes into three smaller groups and gift the Republicans the plurality victory due to in-fighting. There were plenty of reasons for that not to apply to Biden, but I'm curious if you think that'll apply to Harris if she wins?
You mean in 2028, will the Democrats have a free-for-all primary if President Harris is the incumbent, or will they get out of her way for a second term? That's a really good question, given the strangeness of what's happening right now. On one hand, Harris didn't win the current 2024 primary; on the other hand, it would be her hypothetical second term. If I had to guess, I think that the Democrats would lean towards the tradition of letting Harris have a clear shot at a second term, like previous presidential incumbents, assuming her presidency was reasonably successful and not a complete clusterfuck. What do you think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
