|
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 September 16 2026 00:39 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2026 00:35 oBlade wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen, this is what good faith looks like.. What kind of faith is it where you judge an entire political campaign based off 20 minutes that you condensed into two words?
My plan was to give Ossoff 10 minutes but I wanted to be thorough. I've seen him in Senate hearings so I know how his shticks go but I gave him the benefit of a doubt. You could always go to bat for anything important I missed, it'd be a lot better than whatever this was:
On September 15 2026 23:54 LightSpectra wrote:
Maybe he should start bragging to boyscouts about wild sex parties on his yacht so he can win over Trump voters like you.
|
Just for the record: did Trump bragging about his wild sex parties to adolescent boys make you more likely to vote for him, or do you just brush that off because it's a distraction from things that really matter?
|
I can't believe people are engaging in discussing elections with an election denier that will deny the results if the cult leader tells him so.
The interesting part will be if he'll stick to Trump or whoever Trump anoints as his successor or defect to his other daddy Tucker Carlson who seems increasingly likely to run.
With that being said, my ideal candidate, with a bullet would be Jon Stewart, he's not perfect but he seems to have the same positions I do on everything that matters, he is for universal healthcare, trying to actually understand and regulate AI, no new and stopping existing wars, scaling back the military and focusing on Americans.
He is also Jewish so AIPAC would have a hard time smearing him as an anti-Semite which is the favorite tactic of the establishment Dems.
That being said, given that it's very unlikely that he runs and gets nominated, I'll also skip my other pie in the sky candidate AOC simply because USA is way to racist and sexist at the moment to elect her, plus she'd be attacked from both sides, relentlessly for same reasons Jon would, so my pragmatic candidate would likely be Ossoff.
|
On September 16 2026 00:55 LightSpectra wrote:
Just for the record: did Trump bragging about his wild sex parties to adolescent boys make you more likely to vote for him, or do you just brush that off because it's a distraction from things that really matter?
To be honest, just seeing you double down on whatever this latest random crashout is, to get away from the fact you can't find anything meaningful in Ossoff's campaign either, only moves me towards thinking we need an amendment to restrict the franchise to either those who serve in the military, those who pay taxes, or both.
|
On September 16 2026 01:03 Jankisa wrote:
I can't believe people are engaging in discussing elections with an election denier that will deny the results if the cult leader tells him so.
The interesting part will be if he'll stick to Trump or whoever Trump anoints as his successor or defect to his other daddy Tucker Carlson who seems increasingly likely to run.
With that being said, my ideal candidate, with a bullet would be Jon Stewart, he's not perfect but he seems to have the same positions I do on everything that matters, he is for universal healthcare, trying to actually understand and regulate AI, no new and stopping existing wars, scaling back the military and focusing on Americans.
He is also Jewish so AIPAC would have a hard time smearing him as an anti-Semite which is the favorite tactic of the establishment Dems.
That being said, given that it's very unlikely that he runs and gets nominated, I'll also skip my other pie in the sky candidate AOC simply because USA is way to racist and sexist at the moment to elect her, plus she'd be attacked from both sides, relentlessly for same reasons Jon would, so my pragmatic candidate would likely be Ossoff.
Is that conditional on Bottoms winning her race and/or the status of the Senate, or regardless of those factors?
|
On September 15 2026 23:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2026 23:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 15 2026 22:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 15 2026 22:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 15 2026 22:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 15 2026 22:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 15 2026 21:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Gavin Newsom says he won't run for president if Kamala Harris does Gavin Newsom, the California governor, will not run for president if former vice-president Kamala Harris does, he said in a forthcoming interview with CNN.
Newsom and Harris, both from California, are widely viewed as two of the top establishment frontrunners in the coming Democratic presidential primary. Newsom, who terms out this year as governor, has increasingly portrayed himself as a foil to Trump and is widely viewed as positioning himself for a 2028 presidential bid.
But Newsom said running against Harris would waste voters’ time and act as a “gift from God” to their political opponents, he said.
“I wouldn’t do that to her,” Newsom told Jake Tapper, a CNN anchor. “I wouldn’t waste everybody’s time.”
“The zen [sic] diagram on that, it’s pure cross over,” Newsom said. “I wouldn’t do that to people.”
Newsom said he considered running in 2024, but that he “wasn’t ready” and that he was still assessing whether he will be ready for the coming presidential primary. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/sep/14/gavin-newsom-president-kamala-harrisI don't personally like either of them, but it's pretty obvious Newsom would have the better chance of winning and this is a polite way of telling Harris not to run. The candidate that will win the 2028 nomination for Democrats already has people working toward that goal. They have supporters that want them to run and are willing to do actual work to help them. Who is that candidate for the US voters here? Who would the non-US voters like that to be? Do you all think you're capable of coming up with a convincing consensus around who we should help support/convince to run/win in the primary for the benefit of us all personally and the world (since a Republican winning is indisputably bad for humanity)? I have a particular issue with "“I wouldn’t do that to her,” Newsom told Jake Tapper, a CNN anchor. “I wouldn’t waste everybody’s time.”" The whole point of the primary is to let the voters decide who they want, whether that's Harris or Newsom or anyone else. There's no reason to preemptively clear the field when there's not even a true Democratic incumbent. So either Newsom isn't respecting Democratic voters or (as you say) trying to signal to Harris that she should choose to either run again or get out of the way for others to try. Personally, I'd like to see a lot of potential Democratic primary candidates run against each other and essentially stress-test the party with different perspectives and political platforms. Do you have a candidate or at least have a short list of who you are going (provided they run, though convincing them to is also a real thing that has to be done sometimes) to try to help lead in polling and win early primaries? When do you believe it is appropriate for people who want a Democrat to win to have that? Unfortunately, I don't have a candidate or a short list; this'll be the first presidential primary/election where I won't have the time to organize or campaign or do pretty much anything substantive in advance. I'll do some casual research and I'll watch debates and vote (and participate in our forum, when I can), but that's all I'll be able to do for the 2028 election. For those who do have the time and want to make as big a difference as possible, I think that researching right now and getting involved right now would be ideal. Candidates will publicly declare they're running by 2027, and the primaries will be around early 2028, so potential candidates are already putting out feelers to see if they can gain any traction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2028_United_States_presidential_election How important to you is it that a Democrat wins in 2028? That sounds like you're literally deprioritizing it compared to previous elections. Why? Is Democrats winning in 2028 less important than 2024 in your view, or perhaps have personal things taken a higher priority over your political engagement (I mentioned having felt something like this myself in 2015 before Bernie running looked like it could happen)? Is there anyone here that wants to "make as big a difference as possible" (I would personally place this level of engagement under the minimum participation for a meaningful democracy) in favor of Democrats winning in 2028 or is everyone comfortable deprioritizing that like DPB? My wife and I recently had our first child, and focusing all our available time and energy on him takes priority  To your point about "Is Democrats winning in 2028 less important than 2024 in your view", I would hope that most people would say No (it's not less important, it's at least equally important), even if Trump doesn't run again. Every new presidential election is an opportunity for things to get better or worse, and so all of them should be taken seriously! Congratulations! I had a feeling it was something like that and hoped you would have an opinion like that. I hope the rest of the participants don't mind stepping up their game a bit to supplement your absence (both here and toward politics generally so all of the little ones have a future they can look forward to instead of an encroaching hellscape to fear). I genuinely want to take what I would call the "electoralism" crowd at their word that they genuinely believe what you're describing there, so I hope they agree with you and step up
Thanks!
On September 15 2026 23:42 oBlade wrote:
I like DarkPlasmaBall's idea of having a primary, rather than going the traditional Democrat way of everyone voting for whoever they think everyone else will like the most. Maybe get some ideas in there.
Ideas about how to stop crime and drugs from decimating poor and minority communities. From destroying small businesses. How to protect American jobs and provide opportunities to American workers. How to reduce the stranglehold the ACA gave insurance and pharma over healthcare. How to address the mental health crisis. How to expand access to good education and improve education outcomes. How to reduce the cost of higher education. How to restore fiscal responsibility.
You and I definitely have different perspectives on many issues, and disagree on which platforms ought to be prioritized, but I would hope that the Democratic primary isn't just five nearly-identical moderates circle-jerking each other in agreement on issues. Have a moderate establishment candidate in the mix, sure, but I also want to see more left-leaning social democrats and democratic socialists and even a proper socialist in the group, all able to have their voices heard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
