One Brow
Well-Known Member
Honestly, I see that as the most likely scenario.
Donald is about to go through some things...
- Thread starter The Thriller
- Start date
You're probably right. It's really depressing we can't get anyone better, or who would actually be effective at the job, let alone reuniting the country. I understand recency bias and all that but have we ever been at such a low point for the quality of leadership in the country in general? No one inspires hope. I think that's a big reason trump was so popular, he represented a change from the status quo and struck the right nerves to instill some measure of hope in his constituency, however misguided it was.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Wasn’t Obama seen a change from the status quo? Wasn’t W Bush? We seem to always want “change” despite having relatively prosperous and peaceful lives.
And what change do Americans actually want? The electorate often sends conflicting signals. They are concerned about the national debt but then elect politicians who promise tax cuts. They want to protect the social safety net then elect politicians who promise to wreck those programs. They want health care to be cheaper then elect a bunch of politicians who promise to make it more expensive and harder to get. They hate “the establishment” then elect a sleazy reality tv star who brags about enriching himself.
This was taken just prior to the midterms. 40 percent of those polled, Rs and Ds think that decreasing interest rates would help with inflation. How are you supposed to govern like this?
And that’s without taking into consideration that even on issues that voters from political parties agree on, like greater gun regulation, the structures of the filibuster in the Senate make it impossible to implement popular policy.
I think Biden actually won’t run again. I could see Harris (hope not), Mayor Pete (I think he’d be great but he’s gay so he’s unelectable), and Gov Whitmer (hope she does) run.
Last edited:
Douchebag K
Well-Known Member
surely he's burned enough bridges that the people that appealed to have decreased in number by now ?
Nonsense, politics as entertainment, everyone loves a car crash. The problem is that the Chinese and Russians love them too, four more years of Trump and a second civil war over there might be a good thing.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
Man i would love it if pete ran. Get him into some debates against his opponent. They would have no chance against against him
Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Me too.
Mayor Pete would be the perfect antidote to Trump.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
Agreed. He doesnt get flustered/triggered. Trumps petty douchebag behavior would have no effect. Petes intellect would shine and make trumps lack of intellect more apparent.
Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
The only issue with Pete is he’s gay and is married to another man. I’m genuinely curious if that turns off enough voters in key electoral college states? It’s sad how aiming for winning a handful of states replaces the aim of winning the most amount of votes. But thanks to the electoral college, it disproportionally empowers the minority. In this case, it disproportionately empowers the bigots and homophobes.
Imagine how much better off both parties, especially the GOP, would be if they had to compete for the popular vote rather than just juice their base in key states. Dubya and Trump would’ve never happened if Repubs had to appeal the the majority of the country instead of getting Cleutus in some trailer park in Ohio pissed off over trans CRT lovin kids who use the Bible as kitty litter while takin a knee on the flag.
Last edited:
Key states like Florida and Texas, you mean? Two of the most populous states that regularly support republicans? Why not just say that you want California to always be the state that decides the presidency? That would be more intellectually honest at least.
That was part of the intent of the electoral college in the first place, the intent that the most populous states didn't just run rough-shod over the less-populous states by giving the smaller states a proportional voice with a minimum representation level, rather than states like Wyoming and Utah being swallowed entirely by California, even though they pretty much are already. As it is, it is still very imperfect but it kind of accomplishes the goal of letting Cletus have the same voice as any of the Kardashians, regardless of where they live.
I do agree that the electoral college is not really what we need right now though. The electoral college doesn't necessarily do what it was designed to do, other than the part about keeping the voting public separate from actually electing the president, but protecting smaller states was part of the intent at least. If we are going to replace it, we need something that affords such protections in its place, hopefully better than it is now.
One way to balance this out would be a mandate that in each state the number of electors assigned to a given candidate reflects the percentage of the state that voted for that candidate. So in California, where there are 55 electoral votes, let's say the vote is split 55%/45% for Candidates A and B. In this case, Candidate A would get 30 electoral votes and Candidate B would get 25. But in most states it is a winner takes all situation. So if we just changed this one thing, it would balance better to the popular vote. That is one way to make it more closely tied to the popular vote while still protecting the smaller states somewhat.
But unfortunately for things like freedom of speech and free and open elections to actually work you have to accept that people will say things, and vote for things, you may disagree with. Sure it would be nice for a ruling class of self-aggrandizing elites to decide what the government should be, but that would be an aristocracy/oligarchy, not a democracy, and not a place I would want to live.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Texas and Florida aren’t swing states. I’m talking about PA, Ohio, and Michigan. It makes it so these states matter much more than others. Which sucks because I’d rather have candidates compete for votes everywhere; conservatives in CA and liberals on WY.Key states like Florida and Texas, you mean? Two of the most populous states that regularly support republicans? Why not just say that you want California to always be the state that decides the presidency? That would be more intellectually honest at least.
That was part of the intent of the electoral college in the first place, the intent that the most populous states didn't just run rough-shod over the less-populous states by giving the smaller states a proportional voice with a minimum representation level, rather than states like Wyoming and Utah being swallowed entirely by California, even though they pretty much are already. As it is, it is still very imperfect but it kind of accomplishes the goal of letting Cletus have the same voice as any of the Kardashians, regardless of where they live.
I do agree that the electoral college is not really what we need right now though. The electoral college doesn't necessarily do what it was designed to do, other than the part about keeping the voting public separate from actually electing the president, but protecting smaller states was part of the intent at least. If we are going to replace it, we need something that affords such protections in its place, hopefully better than it is now.
One way to balance this out would be a mandate that in each state the number of electors assigned to a given candidate reflects the percentage of the state that voted for that candidate. So in California, where there are 55 electoral votes, let's say the vote is split 55%/45% for Candidates A and B. In this case, Candidate A would get 30 electoral votes and Candidate B would get 25. But in most states it is a winner takes all situation. So if we just changed this one thing, it would balance better to the popular vote. That is one way to make it more closely tied to the popular vote while still protecting the smaller states somewhat.
But unfortunately for things like freedom of speech and free and open elections to actually work you have to accept that people will say things, and vote for things, you may disagree with. Sure it would be nice for a ruling class of self-aggrandizing elites to decide what the government should be, but that would be an aristocracy/oligarchy, not a democracy, and not a place I would want to live.
I think we’ve seen very recently how the EC upends our democracy to empower an oligarchy. Again, we don’t get Bush and Trump, arguably the two most authoritarian and arguably most illiberal presidents in this country’s history, without the anti-democratic EC. Worst of all, it incentivizes extremism. Juice up the base in key swing states and hammer through the most extremist agenda as possible before midterms rather than incentivize popular and moderate candidates and policies.
Keefe
Well-Known Member
I get how Pete was so likable but he blew in the one debate I saw. Sorry but he would not wipe the floor with Trump. Sort of laughable tbh. Trump’s an epic moron but his style of debate, if you can call it that, is why many people loved him.
So far as the only thing going against him being gay…no. Sorry, he was completely unimpressive in the one debate I saw. Moreover, libs can’t have it both ways and cry hard about every perceived act of racism and then turn a blind eye to dude’s city where racism and his poor handling of it has been a very real issue.
So far as the only thing going against him being gay…no. Sorry, he was completely unimpressive in the one debate I saw. Moreover, libs can’t have it both ways and cry hard about every perceived act of racism and then turn a blind eye to dude’s city where racism and his poor handling of it has been a very real issue.
I think there is a good chance he'll be better in his next big stage debate. He's actually not an octogenarian politician so his debate skills are still on the upswing.
I believe I remember hearing about issues in his city on racism... because he's from Indiana and racism is like a pastime there. Was the issue that he turned a blind eye, failed to effect change, or contributed to the racism?
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
Man the debate I saw him in he was incredible. Blew my mind how well he did. And the guy he was debating with was acting like trump would. Pete destroyed him. It was amazing. Wish I knew how to find it and I would post it.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
The real downside to Pete running is that the bigoted attacks on him, his family, and the LGBT community would be insane. He hasn’t declared himself a candidate and Tucker is already attacking him. We all know why Mayor Pete probably hesitated to come out of the closet.
View: https://twitter.com/abughazalehkat/status/1595586081667284993?s=46&t=RboXeX6kwDLoIxd5YgOzDg
So do you think that's a legit reason for him to not run?
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
I would love for him to run. I’d vote for him. But I do have concerns about:
1. His EC electability. I wouldn’t as much if we based our presidential election on the popular vote. But since states like Georgia, Wisconsin, Arizona, Ohio, and Pennsylvania determine our elections, I think we strongly need to consider sexism, racism, and homophobia.
2. Unfortunately, his family would witness one of the ugliest political campaigns in modern-day history. If we thought the bigotry against Obama was bad? Imagine a gay married man. He and his partner will be accused of everything from trampling god to raping children. We see a preview of what’s to come with how republicans treat teachers, trans students, and librarians today.
3. The LGBT community will be placed in an even hotter and brighter spotlight, for both good and bad. There will be rewards for sure. But I really fear for that vulnerable population, especially once MAGA media gets going. MAGA media still tortures Seth Rich’s poor family. The cruelty is like sweet nectar to MAGA. The cruelty often is the point.
Do I want him to run? Absolutely. But I also recognize that everything but his policies will be focused on. The cruelty, bigotry, and hate he, his family, and the LGBT community will endure might dissuade him from running. We’ll see!
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
Keefe
Well-Known Member
Here’s one article. There are a bunch on it.
Buttigieg's rocky record on race gets a closer look
Buttigieg, who spent eight years as mayor of South Bend, Indiana, has tripped up in recent days as he was grilled about his record.
www.pbs.org
That said, I agree with your points on his debating. He was young. Live and learn.
Last edited: