Jamie Raskin also looks good!
Who do you want to see as the 47th POTUS and why?
- Thread starter Aiken_Drumn
- Start date
Sarin
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2013
- Messages
- 2,496
In that case you can't vote for any Republican or Democrat. The two main parties are rotten to the core and are playing a "balance of terror" game with the electorate-basically both parties being such scarecrows that people will vote for one of them out of fear of the other, and thus won't demand from the elected party as much.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
I see you have absorbed the Republican's second favorite point of view, after their first favorite, "Vote Republican."
Sarin
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2013
- Messages
- 2,496
I see that they've succeeded in playing on your fears, to the point where you presume that everyone who's not in Democratic camp is an enemy.
I have repeatedly voiced my opinion here on CFC and elsewhere that for the US, the only democratic way out of this mess is to vote for third part candidates en masse. The old "wasted vote" is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Don't buy into it.
Not going to happen with our pool of potential candidates.
I'm familiar with the "lesser of two evils" issue, I vote third-party quite a lot despite being told that it's wasting my vote. But as I noted above, there are some politicians that are at least capable of standing above party politics.
Narz
keeping it real
I'd forgotten about Marianna Williamson.
@ 1st I dismissed her as a woo-woo nut but if you actually let her talk she at the very least seems to have some passion and would be a breathe of fresh air after the embarrassment of Biden and Harris.
@ 1st I dismissed her as a woo-woo nut but if you actually let her talk she at the very least seems to have some passion and would be a breathe of fresh air after the embarrassment of Biden and Harris.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
This is literally republican propaganda. Congrats you fell for it.
Sarin
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2013
- Messages
- 2,496
Right now, you remind me of a couple of posters, at least one being Russian, in the Ukraine thread.
It doesn't change the fact that this isn't propaganda, but state of affairs that's obvious to anyone who's paying attention.
Apparently Howard Stern is thinking of running https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertain...pc=U531&cvid=a77795619f9b4943a9104d1241860960
Simple platform. Abolish the Electoral College and appoint 5 more Supreme Court Justices. No details on how he will achieve this.
Simple platform. Abolish the Electoral College and appoint 5 more Supreme Court Justices. No details on how he will achieve this.
You have every right to your opinion, but people are likewise able to point out that you can't wish on a monkey paw and get everyone to vote for (the same?) independent(s). Leftists (like myself) are often asked for "realistic" solutions, but it appears we're the only demographic this standard is applied to
As for "playing on fears", that's what you're propagating when you attempt to equate the parties are being identical. I'm not here to say one's good, or one's bad, but as Hygro said the only people that are happy with presenting the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans are the Republicans, because it evens the (uneven) playing field with regards to outcome. Equating a better (but not good) party to a worse (and not good) party is the definition of playing to peoples' fears. Congrats. You got played.
(and before you attempt some tired nonsense about the Ukraine thread and other posters, I stuck up for you in that, so please do me and other posters like Hygro the benefit of treating us like actual, individual people with genuinely-held beliefs and not some sort of hive mind collective of "people who are ideologically-opposed to you")
Sarin
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2013
- Messages
- 2,496
You have every right to your opinion, but people are likewise able to point out that you can't wish on a monkey paw and get everyone to vote for (the same?) independent(s). Leftists (like myself) are often asked for "realistic" solutions, but it appears we're the only demographic this standard is applied to
As for "playing on fears", that's what you're propagating when you attempt to equate the parties are being identical. I'm not here to say one's good, or one's bad, but as Hygro said the only people that are happy with presenting the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans are the Republicans, because it evens the (uneven) playing field with regards to outcome. Equating a better (but not good) party to a worse (and not good) party is the definition of playing to peoples' fears. Congrats. You got played.
I'm not actually saying that they're identical, but they both profit from an arrangement that means they can pocket the big lobby money without doing anything substantial for the people of USA, without the people questioning that and bring in position to effectively demand a change.
Look how it works now. Republicans currently play the role of more active "big bad", but even Democrats are making sure that some people are scared of their policies-just look at California. Remind me, what's current policy regarding theft up to some 900-ish USD in San Francisco? Both parties are taking active measures to maintain the balance. When Democrats had supermajority during part of Obama's presidency, they could have addressed all the non-controversial issues that trouble American public like worker rights, housing prices...but all they did was half-hearted healthcare "reform" that didn't address any of the causes but made life harder for small businesses. Their presidential candidates in 2016 and 2020 were downright awful, with better ones, who actually might challenge status quo, being sidelined to the point where leadership of Democrats was ready to fix the primaries.
You misinterpret me, I don't see the two parties as opposite but equally awful. I see them both as part of same political cartel, and it doesn't matter for which party you vote, you still vote for the status quo. The only democratic way out of it is to vote for third party. Yes, most likely they won't win anything yet. But voting for them, and saying why, is the only way to break the self-fulfilling prophecy about wasted vote. Otherwise, voting either Democrats or Republicans is just voting for status quo and being content that most important issues will just never be addressed.
(
If you want such consideration, treat others the same way. Hygro didn't do that, and I responded in kind.
Remorseless1
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2022
- Messages
- 1,214
Joaquin Castro
Pete Buttigieg
Stacy Abram
Just three Democrats off the top of my head. Klobuchar was mentioned earlier and is also a solid choice.
To show why the Democrats are the Cleveland Browns of politics, there is talk of Hillary 2024...
Pete Buttigieg
Stacy Abram
Just three Democrats off the top of my head. Klobuchar was mentioned earlier and is also a solid choice.
To show why the Democrats are the Cleveland Browns of politics, there is talk of Hillary 2024...
You don't know third party is viable until after primaries. And grooming a candidate starts a lot earlier than that.
So, there's more opportunity to change a party than might be perceived at actual election day.
So, there's more opportunity to change a party than might be perceived at actual election day.
Sure.
I agree with this in part, but I disagree that the outcome of voting either way is the same status quo. One of the problem US politics has is that one party is at least trying to be bipartisan while the other party is not. Flagrantly. Blatantly. One party does whatever they want, and the other points to allegedly-democratic norms to explain why they can't do whatever they want.
And don't get me wrong - I'm sure these norms often are invoked so that the Democrats don't have to do the things the people might want them to do. But the fact remains that the "status quo" might - on the whole - look similar in a number of ways regardless of who's in power, there are many important details that change dramatically depending on which party is / has a majority / has the Senate / etc.
Hygro simply said you had internalised propaganda, which is much the same as you decrying people for voting Democrat for buying into a status quo. The way I see it, you took that badly, and you reacted badly.
Lexicus
Deity
I'd have said you were pretty much right as little as six years ago. Unfortunately, you missed that the Republicans have openly turned against the Constitution and the Republic and are seeking to turn the US from a multiparty parliamentary democracy into at best a "managed" democracy. So they are substantially worse than the Democrats, period.
Grendeldef
Trancerelic & coffeeholic
That's a nice wish but way too harsh for 21st century.
I'd settle for someone sane. Somewhat decent would be cool & competent, in any even remotely related discipline, probably only a dream.
Since we're far off the election or even primary I'd say my choice would be Neil deGrasse Tyson but he's extremely unlikely to be made to run, for any political office. It'd also create an interesting question for the public as if a person can be elected to a higher office in the US without passing the religious test.
Sure, Sanders is a lapsed Jew but since WW2 a non-believing cultural Jew is a norm.
Berzerker
Deity
and ban the unvaccinated from hospitals
Remorseless1
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2022
- Messages
- 1,214
Theocratic paradise for white men with guns is their ultimate goal.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2007
- Messages
- 9,316
I agree with Berzerker that as long as Biden's health holds up, Trump isn't likely to come back, and the GOP would be ill-advised to nominate him. Biden's approval rating may not be super high right now, but if there's one thing that can unite Biden voters no matter how much the economy may sputter over the next two years, it's that Trump is worse than any alternative. We could have Herbert Hoover in 1932, three years into the Great Depression with no discernible progress, or Trump, and I'd still vote for Herbert Hoover. And even if things go south, it's not going to be that bad.
A lot of people here are focusing on 2024. I'd rather have the 47th president take office in 2028. Yes, Biden is older than I would want my 2024 pick to be. He would be 86 at the end of a second term, which is too old. But at this point, I wouldn't pick anyone over him for the 2024 primaries. It probably should be contested (unlike in 2012), and I may change my mind. But Biden is the one guy that I would trust to definitely beat Trump, and that's a huge advantage. And if he were re-elected and had to resign for health reasons, I'd be okay with Harris as his successor. I also suspect he is enough of a patriot and sufficiently non-self-centered that if his doctors told him he shouldn't be in office anymore, and he'd already ensured Trump wasn't winning in 2024, he'd leave early.
2028 is too far away to really say, but who do I like? Buttigieg was my first pick in the primaries in 2020, and is promising. A thinker. If Tim Ryan wins Ohio's Senate race to replace the Republican Portman, which is considered only slightly unlikely, I could see him considering a presidential run in 2028 as a moderate, pro-Union Democrat. Especially if that flip lets Democrats enact legislation that Manchin has been blocking. He's the type of Democrat who can win back workers who have drifted to the GOP over the past decade, with his strong pro-union, anti-outsourcing credentials. I like Whitmer, although the political gridlock in Michigan means she'll probably need state Dems to win a majority in both houses to have enough successes in a second gubernatorial term to have a solid base of success on which to build a campaign.
Sununu is an interesting option from the GOP side. If they do pick Trump again in 2024, and he loses again, I see it as highly probably that they'll choose a "traditional", moderate candidate in 2028. I've heard good things about him, though I don't know much about NH politics. Does Larry Hogan still have a good reputation in Maryland? Charlie Baker in Massachusetts? Romney would be too old, but if he really wanted it he could stage a viable campaign as the one national GOP figure who was highly visibly anti-Trump while the latter was president. More likely, he could make a highly influential endorsement in the primaries.
At least some of those potential GOP moderates would be ones I might vote for over a left-wing Democrat, if it was clear that the GOP was past Trumpism. Most of the left-wing Democrats are too focused on culture issues and not enough focused on workers and the economy for my tastes. The only one who I like enough to possibly endorse is Warren, but she would be too old by 2028.
A lot of people here are focusing on 2024. I'd rather have the 47th president take office in 2028. Yes, Biden is older than I would want my 2024 pick to be. He would be 86 at the end of a second term, which is too old. But at this point, I wouldn't pick anyone over him for the 2024 primaries. It probably should be contested (unlike in 2012), and I may change my mind. But Biden is the one guy that I would trust to definitely beat Trump, and that's a huge advantage. And if he were re-elected and had to resign for health reasons, I'd be okay with Harris as his successor. I also suspect he is enough of a patriot and sufficiently non-self-centered that if his doctors told him he shouldn't be in office anymore, and he'd already ensured Trump wasn't winning in 2024, he'd leave early.
2028 is too far away to really say, but who do I like? Buttigieg was my first pick in the primaries in 2020, and is promising. A thinker. If Tim Ryan wins Ohio's Senate race to replace the Republican Portman, which is considered only slightly unlikely, I could see him considering a presidential run in 2028 as a moderate, pro-Union Democrat. Especially if that flip lets Democrats enact legislation that Manchin has been blocking. He's the type of Democrat who can win back workers who have drifted to the GOP over the past decade, with his strong pro-union, anti-outsourcing credentials. I like Whitmer, although the political gridlock in Michigan means she'll probably need state Dems to win a majority in both houses to have enough successes in a second gubernatorial term to have a solid base of success on which to build a campaign.
Sununu is an interesting option from the GOP side. If they do pick Trump again in 2024, and he loses again, I see it as highly probably that they'll choose a "traditional", moderate candidate in 2028. I've heard good things about him, though I don't know much about NH politics. Does Larry Hogan still have a good reputation in Maryland? Charlie Baker in Massachusetts? Romney would be too old, but if he really wanted it he could stage a viable campaign as the one national GOP figure who was highly visibly anti-Trump while the latter was president. More likely, he could make a highly influential endorsement in the primaries.
At least some of those potential GOP moderates would be ones I might vote for over a left-wing Democrat, if it was clear that the GOP was past Trumpism. Most of the left-wing Democrats are too focused on culture issues and not enough focused on workers and the economy for my tastes. The only one who I like enough to possibly endorse is Warren, but she would be too old by 2028.
