|
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 23 2024 03:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2024 03:02 GreenHorizons wrote: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?
Not sure. Think it's messed up for kids that turned 18 this election to potentially be 26 before their first real primary. But also messed up to push Biden through with that (bullshit imo) argument, despite knowing how deteriorated he was years ago, only to say it doesn't apply to the first woman president.
I don't think I could stomach the hypocrisy from anyone that helped push Biden through the 2024 primary having the audacity to pick Harris to break this pseudo-tradition on, even if she was the worst president in history. I'd give Dean Phillips, Cornel West, Marianne Williamson passes for example.
But ultimately, I sorta feel like Harris campaigning is going to remind everyone why she was going to finish 4th or worse in her own home state during the primary. Hopefully I'm wrong and she can coast on not being Trump, but if not, that'll be the end of the Democrat party in all but name.
|
On July 23 2024 03:00 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +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.
1) and first sentence of 2) - It's precisely because I'm often curious what's being said in conservative corners of the internet about certain events that I see your takes dozens of times before you bring them here.
The rest of 2) - If you think she's undeserving, that's ok and perfectly valid. The solution is simple, don't vote for her. Have a good one 
|
If Harris manages to win 2024 then I don't see why they wouldn't be the presumed candidate for 2028 same as everyone else.
Ofc being the presumed candidate doesn't automatically mean you are the actual candidate, the situation at the time can change things. As we saw with Biden.
|
On July 23 2024 03:00 oBlade wrote:
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.
Shoot, dude. Probably not a great take that the first sentence is you claiming someone is hallucinating about you whining about biden stepping down, and then the second is IMMEDIATELY whining about biden stepping down.
|
On July 23 2024 03:45 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2024 03:00 oBlade wrote: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. 1) and first sentence of 2) - It's precisely because I'm often curious what's being said in conservative corners of the internet about certain events that I see your takes dozens of times before you bring them here.
For my edification, would you name two? I want to know which conservatives are as clever as I am. Because if they're all as pathetically conjured strawmen as the fantastical idea that Biden dropping out is unfair to Drumpf that you randomly just tried to pin on me, it'll be disappointing.
On July 23 2024 03:45 Dan HH wrote:The rest of 2) - If you think she's undeserving, that's ok and perfectly valid. The solution is simple, don't vote for her. Have a good one
If enough people stop uncritically swallowing DNC talking points, automatically doing what the elites told them to do, willingly getting lied to by higher-ups, and voting in Democratic candidates that got selected uncompetitively, or in fixed primaries, or anointed, they will indeed eventually have to stop fixing their own primaries. We get there faster by talking about it though.
|
On July 23 2024 03:00 oBlade 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. 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. Show nested quote +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.
Biden isn't going to be in the election. Biden's record against Trump will forever be 1-0.
Third-party candidates that align with the left help the right, and vice-versa. Stein and West, for example, are far more likely to pull a few votes from Harris, not Trump, meaning that Harris will have to be the one to overcome those two alternatives who are helping Trump. Trump wants to go up against multiple candidates on the left, as that makes his run easier. That's not something to be impressed by, if Trump wins the election by playing on an easier difficulty; it's way easier to defeat 2 or 3 or 4 Democratic candidates in the general election than just 1 Democratic candidate. It's a little less clear as to whether Kennedy is helping the left or right with his third-party run, for what it's worth.
And if Kennedy wanted to run in the Democratic primary, he could have, but he would have received very few votes. He's a pariah because he's crazy; his lack of popularity is well-deserved.
|
I've seen alot of concerned reactions from Republicans and Trump supporters about this.
Maybe I was wrong about Harris.
|
On July 23 2024 04:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2024 03:00 oBlade wrote: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. 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. Biden isn't going to be in the election. Biden's record against Trump will forever be 1-0. Third-party candidates that align with the left help the right, and vice-versa. Stein and West, for example, are far more likely to pull a few votes from Harris, not Trump, meaning that Harris will have to be the one to overcome those two alternatives who are helping Trump. Trump wants to go up against multiple candidates on the left, as that makes his run easier. That's not something to be impressed by, if Trump wins the election by playing on an easier difficulty; it's way easier to defeat 2 or 3 or 4 Democratic candidates in the general election than just 1 Democratic candidate. It's a little less clear as to whether Kennedy is helping the left or right with his third-party run, for what it's worth. And if Kennedy wanted to run in the Democratic primary, he could have, but he would have received very few votes. He's a pariah because he's crazy; his lack of popularity is well-deserved. OBlade is right about one thing, Trump would have to defeat Kennedy.
Because Kennedy is not a Democrat.
He is anti-vaxxer, facing sexual assault allegations which he countered with a 'sorry' text message and a "who knows how many more allegations will come out" when interviewed about it. Who talks about how worms ate part of his brain.
He pulls more votes away from Trump then he does from any Democratic candidate. Be it Biden or Harris.
|
On July 23 2024 04:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2024 03:00 oBlade wrote: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. 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. Biden isn't going to be in the election. Biden's record against Trump will forever be 1-0. Third-party candidates that align with the left help the right, and vice-versa. Stein and West, for example, are far more likely to pull a few votes from Harris, not Trump, meaning that Harris will have to be the one to overcome those two alternatives who are helping Trump. Trump wants to go up against multiple candidates on the left, as that makes his run easier. That's not something to be impressed by, if Trump wins the election by playing on an easier difficulty; it's way easier to defeat 2 or 3 or 4 Democratic candidates in the general election than just 1 Democratic candidate. It's a little less clear as to whether Kennedy is helping the left or right with his third-party run, for what it's worth.
Thanks for explaining to everyone and their mother know how spoiler candidates work again. This incredibly literalist take on a simple joke cannot erase the fact that a few weeks ago a political knockout was broadcast that resulted in the catastrophic collapse of a Democratic candidate, a candidate who was voted for, (oh no it wasn't "election" yet it was just "campaign" it didn't count - wrong) and caused him to leave the race, and now there are, as you mentioned, an unclear but probably plural number of Democrats remaining in the race. You'd say one, I'd say two, Desantis supporters would say three. Whether it's a greater achievement to somersault through a hallway filled with kindergarteners as bowling pins, or a lone Mike Tyson, is another question altogether, but you have to admit nobody else has been able to put the former on their resume. That is all.
|
On July 23 2024 04:20 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2024 04:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 23 2024 03:00 oBlade wrote: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. 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. Biden isn't going to be in the election. Biden's record against Trump will forever be 1-0. Third-party candidates that align with the left help the right, and vice-versa. Stein and West, for example, are far more likely to pull a few votes from Harris, not Trump, meaning that Harris will have to be the one to overcome those two alternatives who are helping Trump. Trump wants to go up against multiple candidates on the left, as that makes his run easier. That's not something to be impressed by, if Trump wins the election by playing on an easier difficulty; it's way easier to defeat 2 or 3 or 4 Democratic candidates in the general election than just 1 Democratic candidate. It's a little less clear as to whether Kennedy is helping the left or right with his third-party run, for what it's worth. Thanks for explaining to everyone and their mother know how spoiler candidates work again. This incredibly literalist take on a simple joke cannot erase the fact that a few weeks ago a political knockout was broadcast that resulted in the catastrophic collapse of a Democratic candidate, a candidate who was voted for, (oh no it wasn't "election" yet it was just "campaign" it didn't count - wrong) and caused him to leave the race, and now there are, as you mentioned, an unclear but probably plural number of Democrats remaining in the race. You'd say one, I'd say two, Desantis supporters would say three. Whether it's a greater achievement to somersault through a hallway filled with kindergarteners as bowling pins, or a lone Mike Tyson, is another question altogether, but you have to admit nobody else has been able to put the former on their resume. That is all. A candidate who was not final.
You seem to keep missing out on that fact.
Biden was the presumed candidate. Not the official candidate. We all acted like he was for obvious reasons, but that doesn't count for jack shit until the delegates at the convention deliver their vote.
|
On July 23 2024 04:01 Jockmcplop wrote:
I've seen alot of concerned reactions from Republicans and Trump supporters about this.
Maybe I was wrong about Harris.
I'm not sure why, to be honest. Sure, they've spent a lot of time attacking Biden, but I don't think it'd be super hard for them to start ganging up on another Democrat.
On July 23 2024 04:20 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2024 04:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 23 2024 03:00 oBlade wrote: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. 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. Biden isn't going to be in the election. Biden's record against Trump will forever be 1-0. Third-party candidates that align with the left help the right, and vice-versa. Stein and West, for example, are far more likely to pull a few votes from Harris, not Trump, meaning that Harris will have to be the one to overcome those two alternatives who are helping Trump. Trump wants to go up against multiple candidates on the left, as that makes his run easier. That's not something to be impressed by, if Trump wins the election by playing on an easier difficulty; it's way easier to defeat 2 or 3 or 4 Democratic candidates in the general election than just 1 Democratic candidate. It's a little less clear as to whether Kennedy is helping the left or right with his third-party run, for what it's worth. Thanks for explaining to everyone and their mother know how spoiler candidates work again. This incredibly literalist take on a simple joke [et al.]
I apologize for not realizing that you were making a joke. Most of your posts have a pretty serious tone to them.
On July 23 2024 04:08 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2024 04:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 23 2024 03:00 oBlade wrote: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. 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. Biden isn't going to be in the election. Biden's record against Trump will forever be 1-0. Third-party candidates that align with the left help the right, and vice-versa. Stein and West, for example, are far more likely to pull a few votes from Harris, not Trump, meaning that Harris will have to be the one to overcome those two alternatives who are helping Trump. Trump wants to go up against multiple candidates on the left, as that makes his run easier. That's not something to be impressed by, if Trump wins the election by playing on an easier difficulty; it's way easier to defeat 2 or 3 or 4 Democratic candidates in the general election than just 1 Democratic candidate. It's a little less clear as to whether Kennedy is helping the left or right with his third-party run, for what it's worth. And if Kennedy wanted to run in the Democratic primary, he could have, but he would have received very few votes. He's a pariah because he's crazy; his lack of popularity is well-deserved. OBlade is right about one thing, Trump would have to defeat Kennedy. Because Kennedy is not a Democrat. He is anti-vaxxer, facing sexual assault allegations which he countered with a 'sorry' text message and a "who knows how many more allegations will come out" when interviewed about it. Who talks about how worms ate part of his brain. He pulls more votes away from Trump then he does from any Democratic candidate. Be it Biden or Harris.
I really, really hope so.
|
On July 23 2024 04:01 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2024 03:45 Dan HH wrote:On July 23 2024 03:00 oBlade wrote: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. 1) and first sentence of 2) - It's precisely because I'm often curious what's being said in conservative corners of the internet about certain events that I see your takes dozens of times before you bring them here. For my edification, would you name two? I want to know which conservatives are as clever as I am. Because if they're all as pathetically conjured strawmen as the fantastical idea that Biden dropping out is unfair to Drumpf that you randomly just tried to pin on me, it'll be disappointing.
You think I scribble down usernames from Twitter or r/conservative in case I have to cite them? I don't have that much free time, I don't even read the usernames.
But fear not, I already know the perfect match for your cleverness. It's Donald J. Trump himself. You can go to his socials and find him calling Kamala an incompetent border czar and complaining that he has to fight multiple Democrats in the same election, just like you did in the post I replied to. Congrats on matching his intelligence.
|
On July 23 2024 04:01 Jockmcplop wrote:
I've seen alot of concerned reactions from Republicans and Trump supporters about this.
Maybe I was wrong about Harris.
Get on the Ferris with Harris, it’s gonna be a wild ride
|
On July 23 2024 04:30 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2024 04:20 oBlade wrote:On July 23 2024 04:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 23 2024 03:00 oBlade wrote: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. 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. Biden isn't going to be in the election. Biden's record against Trump will forever be 1-0. Third-party candidates that align with the left help the right, and vice-versa. Stein and West, for example, are far more likely to pull a few votes from Harris, not Trump, meaning that Harris will have to be the one to overcome those two alternatives who are helping Trump. Trump wants to go up against multiple candidates on the left, as that makes his run easier. That's not something to be impressed by, if Trump wins the election by playing on an easier difficulty; it's way easier to defeat 2 or 3 or 4 Democratic candidates in the general election than just 1 Democratic candidate. It's a little less clear as to whether Kennedy is helping the left or right with his third-party run, for what it's worth. Thanks for explaining to everyone and their mother know how spoiler candidates work again. This incredibly literalist take on a simple joke cannot erase the fact that a few weeks ago a political knockout was broadcast that resulted in the catastrophic collapse of a Democratic candidate, a candidate who was voted for, (oh no it wasn't "election" yet it was just "campaign" it didn't count - wrong) and caused him to leave the race, and now there are, as you mentioned, an unclear but probably plural number of Democrats remaining in the race. You'd say one, I'd say two, Desantis supporters would say three. Whether it's a greater achievement to somersault through a hallway filled with kindergarteners as bowling pins, or a lone Mike Tyson, is another question altogether, but you have to admit nobody else has been able to put the former on their resume. That is all. A candidate who was not final. You seem to keep missing out on that fact. Biden was the presumed candidate. Not the official candidate. We all acted like he was for obvious reasons, but that doesn't count for jack shit until the delegates at the convention deliver their vote.
Nah, don't worry about all that; oBlade was just kidding. oBlade knows that Trump's 0 wins and 1 loss against Biden will forever be the official record, since Biden is stepping aside and letting someone else have a whack at the orange piñata during the next election. Final score: Biden 1, Trump 0. Just like how Hillary's final score was Clinton 0, Trump 1. We'll see how Harris does.
|
On July 23 2024 04:36 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2024 04:01 Jockmcplop wrote:
I've seen alot of concerned reactions from Republicans and Trump supporters about this.
Maybe I was wrong about Harris. Get on the Ferris with Harris, it’s gonna be a wild ride
Well i can tell you now the more whining the Republicans and their fans do the more everyone's going to be on board with Harris.
|
Contested conventions arent even a new thing. Reagan had one with Gerald Ford. Circumstances were different but the result was the same.
Its just all bad faith on that whole topic. My guess is Republicans are trying to be evil again to keep Kamala Harris off some state ballots.
|
United States10393 Posts
On July 23 2024 05:06 Sadist wrote:
Contested conventions arent even a new thing. Reagan had one with Gerald Ford. Circumstances were different but the result was the same.
Its just all bad faith on that whole topic. My guess is Republicans are trying to be evil again to keep Kamala Harris off some state ballots.
Some filing dates are very close to the end of the DNC. I think the only swing state that's in serious danger may be Pennsylvania since their last day is like August 7, but they are likely to get an extension for the deadline I believe (and even if they don't I'm sure they're going to submit Harris's name anyways).
|
On July 23 2024 05:17 FlaShFTW wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2024 05:06 Sadist wrote:
Contested conventions arent even a new thing. Reagan had one with Gerald Ford. Circumstances were different but the result was the same.
Its just all bad faith on that whole topic. My guess is Republicans are trying to be evil again to keep Kamala Harris off some state ballots.
Some filing dates are very close to the end of the DNC. I think the only swing state that's in serious danger may be Pennsylvania since their last day is like August 7, but they are likely to get an extension for the deadline I believe (and even if they don't I'm sure they're going to submit Harris's name anyways). Ohio was August 7th, but they passed a law to change it to September 1st, but that law doesn't go into effect until September 1st so it might be iffy if they want to fuck around.
After that its all after Aug 21st
(according to https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/biden-replacement-ballot-access-democrats-rcna162815)
|
On July 23 2024 04:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2024 03:00 oBlade wrote: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. 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. Biden isn't going to be in the election. Biden's record against Trump will forever be 1-0.
To be fair, Biden wouldn't pull out of the election if he wasn't so far behind Trump that he didn't see a chance that he could win. According to Politico, he saw new internal polling suggesting he had "no path to victory" the night before he pulled out. I'd call that a loss by walkover.
|
On July 23 2024 05:39 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2024 04:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 23 2024 03:00 oBlade wrote: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. 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. Biden isn't going to be in the election. Biden's record against Trump will forever be 1-0. To be fair, Biden wouldn't pull out of the election if he wasn't so far behind Trump that he didn't see a chance that he could win. According to Politico, he saw new internal polling suggesting he had "no path to victory" the night before he pulled out. I'd call that a loss by walkover.
Polling and prediction aren't the same as election results, period. It will forever stay as 1-0, and it'd be nice to trigger Trump by not letting him ever, ever, ever forget that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
