Election 2024 Part III: Out with the old!

[Farm Boy]

Yes, that he's not a moron and has some self reflection capacity.

It's not like everyone goes out and assumes they'll be a garbage person that day. They'll even lie to themselves after they are.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Imagine our first Black woman president not having won some sort of public nomination process.

There are two separate things wrong with this statement.

First, in Nov of 2020, 81 million people cast a vote that said "if anything should happen to Joe Biden in the next four years, I am comfortable with Kamala Harris serving as President." So she has been approved by voters (more than have ever before voted on the matter) as being presidential material.

Second, she can't become "our first Black woman president" until after she has passed an even more stringent selection process than a nomination within the Democratic party: namely, a national election.

BLM is (understandably) hypersensitive about the kinds of attacks that the right will use against Harris, but should she win the election, this question of "merit" is instantly settled.

Edit: on further reflection, there's a third, more subtle, thing wrong with the statement:

Third, what is at stake in this election is not "our first Black woman president." That we end up with our first Black woman president might end up being a consequence of the election. But what is directly at stake in the election is whether people would prefer that Donald Trump or Kamala Harris serve as their next president. Sometimes people do represent a particular subject position, and so it would make their election remarkable in some way. But it is not what is at stake in the election. JFK was the first Catholic president. Before he was elected, there were questions about whether America could elect a Catholic as a President. Those people who did vote for him were at least okay with that. But nobody, in the voting booth, said "Ya know what, I would like a Catholic President; oh, lookie here, it turns out a Catholic is running; I'll vote for him." Rather, they voted for JFK, with all of his qualifications and promise over however they sized up Nixon.

 

[Lexicus]

I’d ask the same thing surrounding the whole fear mongering around Project 2025.

Project 2025 is a fairly detailed policy document that you can go and read on the Heritage Foundation website.

Five pages into the foreword you will read the sentence "Pornography should be outlawed"

 

[Verbose]

Most people can be in a room with people from the opposite sex without cheating on their partner. That fact he did not so trust himself says something about him.

Yeah, like that Mike Pence could be the living embodiment of what makes how US parses religion and sexuality weird to most Europeans.

Outcome - not bad – just... weird!

But then Donald Trump out-weirds them all.

 

[JollyRoger]

The thing everyone was always so pissed at him for was that he took preventative care to not be caught in situations where it was easy to become corrupt, or succumb to infidelity.

You can't even trust the current GOP VP candidate to be alone with your furniture

 

[GenMarshall]

What policies are meaningful to you, Gen Marshall? I will try to engage you in good faith..

I suspect she won't tinker too much, if at all, with the Democratic Party platform:

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000190-acc7-da7b-a393-adc723860000

So if you tell me what is meaningful to you, I will scour it and the RNC platform and tell you why I think her policies will be better.

I’d appreciate it, though it’s going to take me a while to go through the entire document and break it down but by bit on which policies that don’t sit well with me and that I’d consider woke.

Scouring the RNC platform wouldn’t be necessary since I’ve more or less been debating on eather just voting third party like I did back in 2016 as a protest vote or just flat out not vote at all and just say “F-Politics, do what you want. Leave me the fudge out of it, don’t bother me and keep politics out of my video games!”. I’m leaning towards the latter since I’m getting tired of getting attacked for my views (even if I disavowed old cringe takes) and general war weariness of the current culture war.

Project 2025 is a fairly detailed policy document that you can go and read on the Heritage Foundation website.

I’m gonna have to find a non-partisan YouTube video on it to listen to in summary (I’m not that inclined to jump into the BredTube sphere). I already have Gori’s link to digest and break down.

Five pages into the foreword you will read the sentence "Pornography should be outlawed"

Wait. First of all, is this breaking the “leftists are sex negative prudes” stereotype that I’ve known since 2015? Second, this has been the fundamentalist conservative Christian MO for a long long time.

But I guess you take Trump on his word he doesn't know about 2025, and it'll all be fine, right?

His words are worth, how can I put it in a PG family friendly way, noting but dog poop.

 

[Samson]

I’m gonna have to find a non-partisan YouTube video on it to listen to in summary (I’m not that inclined to jump into the BredTube sphere).

I do not think such a thing exists, on any contentious topic really but certainly on this one.

Just skim the primary source, they are not hiding. They list their policy priorities on page 36 of the pdf, and then it gets straight down to the juicy stuff:

This starts with deleting the terms ... abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and any other term used to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists.

Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed.

 

[Gori the Grey]

though it’s going to take me a while to go through the entire document and break it down but by bit

I'm not putting it on you to read the whole thing. I just posted it so that you could know, officially speaking, what she will be standing for (as flag-bearer for Democratic policies).

Rather I'm asking, setting aside the various parties' platforms for a moment, how would GenMarshall like to see American society be different in four years than it is now? What problems need fixing? Or what advances could reasonably be made, in your view? What is it you care about?

In 2000, I was very tempted to vote for Ralph Nader because he made campaign finance reform central to his platform and at the time I thought nothing could solve more problems with one blow than that one initiative. (If that young(er) me could ever have known how much worse still it would become . . .!) That's all I'm asking. What are the issues that genuinely do move you?

 

[JollyRoger]

Project 2025 or anyone else will have to pry my undocumented immigrant maid from my cold, dead hands.

 

[Farm Boy]

You can't even trust the current GOP VP candidate to be alone with your furniture

...now that's a few different mental images...

 

[Voidwalkin]

On Josh Shapiro, who has recently been mentioned: he is the obvious pick, provided he wants to do it. Delivers PA, popular in the Midwest and generally seems a sharp and capable man.

He is very pro-Israel. There's some fear that progressives will persistently, and loudly, signal their dissatisfaction with any policymaker not staunchly opposed to further arms shipments.

I think Harris will make further noncommittal statements on the matter, and refuse to commit to ending weapons shipments, so she may as well make the pick anyway. If it's inevitable she upsets them, may as well make the smart pick.

 

[Angst]

I’d ask the same thing surrounding the whole fear mongering around Project 2025.

hey man. you don't have to read all of it. just read some excerpts. it's insane.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I'm going to get back on the ball and do the fourth installment in my thread tonight.

We (the Cival we) could be reading the thing together . . . was my idea, anyway.

Edit, unrelated: MSNBC just showed clips from a speech she gave today and hot damn is she a good orator!

 

[Lexicus]

On Josh Shapiro, who has recently been mentioned: he is the obvious pick, provided he wants to do it. Delivers PA, popular in the Midwest and generally seems a sharp and capable man.

He is very pro-Israel. There's some fear that progressives will persistently, and loudly, signal their dissatisfaction with any policymaker not staunchly opposed to further arms shipments.

I think Harris will make further noncommittal statements on the matter, and refuse to commit to ending weapons shipments, so she may as well make the pick anyway. If it's inevitable she upsets them, may as well make the smart pick.

Shapiro probably loses MI, but the big electoral problem for him is his pushing of school vouchers, meaning the teachers' unions all hate him like rat poison. It will be quite difficult to ask them to do GOTV operations with Shapiro on the ticket.

The obvious pick would be Beshear, Cooper, or Walz. Beshear and Cooper are both dem governors in red states so they have strong appeal to independents.

Edit: "very pro-Israel" is an interesting way to put "prioritizes Zionism above the 1st Amendment"

 

[Angst]

I'm going to get back on the ball and do the fourth installment in my thread tonight.

We (the Cival we) could be reading the thing together . . . was my idea, anyway.

Edit, unrelated: MSNBC just showed clips from a speech she gave today and hot damn is she a good orator!

it's a good thread. i only knew about the executive replacement before the thread, and had me pay more attention. i didn't expect them to say the quiet part out loud.

 

[Birdjaguar]

So, why did Donald Trump select a neckbeard with the charisma of a potato as his VP nominee? Lowest rated VP nominee in decades.

Is it because JD Vance has been carried from job to job (where he didn't do much actual work according to his former co-workers) by benefactor and Billionaire Peter Thiel - and Trump wants Thiel's money for himself?

https://www.newsweek.com/jd-vance-least-liked-vp-nominee-decades-polls-1929470#:~:text=JD Vance is the first,1980, according to poll numbers.
https://www.businessinsider.com/jd-vance-venture-capitalist-colleagues-2024-7
https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoni...p-between-trumps-vp-pick-and-the-billionaire/

Because Trump i a bigly stable genius who never makes a mistake and Vance will never compete with trump for popularity. keep in mind that Trump selected Vance after the debate and before Biden stepped aside. Bad move. Vance is very likely to drive women to vote for Kamala. Perhaps he would have selected a different person had he seen that Harris was on the rise. Two women hating white guys on the ticket is not a good look.

It's the second time a coup caused by Trump's actions blew up in his face


Is it legally possible to replace Vance? (he must have been chosen only due to the election deemed as won already vs Biden).

Trump's coup attempt after the election of 2020 failed. There has never been another coup or coup attempt against Biden. No one has made any effort to remove him from office. He is still the president and will be until the end of his term (unless he dies). If Trump loses in 2024, he will likely try again to over turn the election.

What is the "second coup caused by Trump" that you are talking about?

coup d'état /koo͞″ dā-tä′/

noun​

1. The sudden overthrow of a government by a usually small group of persons in or previously in positions of authority.
2. The sudden overthrow of a government, differing from a revolution by being carried out by a small group of people who replace only the leading figures

Trump probably could replace Vance. The rules around his selection and nomination are the rules of the RNC. Technically, I think the RNC would have to hold a new convention, but since Trump controls that organization, he would find a way to skip such an action and just do it. Tod do so, Trump would have to admit he made a mistake. They would have to reprint all those signs and repaint airplanes....I guess the stable genius forgot about all the anti Trump rhetoric Vance has in his history.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Shapiro probably loses MI, but the big electoral problem for him is his pushing of school vouchers, meaning the teachers' unions all hate him like rat poison. It will be quite difficult to ask them to do GOTV operations with Shapiro on the ticket.

The obvious pick would be Beshear, Cooper, or Walz. Beshear and Cooper are both dem governors in red states so they have strong appeal to independents.

Edit: "very pro-Israel" is an interesting way to put "prioritizes Zionism above the 1st Amendment"

Even presuming Beshear offers more moderate appeal that Shapiro, which is disputable, I still can't see weighing it anywhere near as highly as a complete gamechanger in PA.

Without PA, it's hard to envision a Harris win.

 

[Lexicus]

I am very skeptical that Shapiro would be a "complete gamechanger" in PA. It isn't the 19th century or even the 20th anymore.

 

[Voidwalkin]

I am very skeptical that Shapiro would be a "complete gamechanger" in PA. It isn't the 19th century or even the 20th anymore.

If Harris cannot win PA with a popular PA governor, who defeated his MAGA challenger Mastriano by 10 points, the Harris campaign is doomed.

Is it Michigan you worry about?

 

[Lexicus]

If Harris cannot win PA with a popular PA governor, who defeated his MAGA challenger Mastriano by 10 points, the Harris campaign is doomed.

I'm not saying she can't win PA, I'm just skeptical that putting Shapiro on the ticket gives her a meaningfully higher chance of winning PA than any other pick.