Jump to content


The Republican Utopia


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, JJ Husker said:

I don’t think the basic problem is more people needing a conscience. We are being forced to vote for the lesser of two evils. To break that cycle what is truly needed are much better candidates from the two major parties and actually electably viable candidates from 3rd parties. Sorry but a person can’t vote their conscience when someone like Trump is on the ballot and has any chance in hell of getting elected. You have to vote against that as opposed to taking a flyer on somebody with 15% support in the polls. In short, we are effed until the candidates improve immensely.

Respectfully JJ, I think you're proving my point. Everybody thinks it's a binary, vote for the lesser of two evils situation. It's really not. But Americans continue to vote that way time and again.

 

We literally have the ability to change how the system works if we vote for better people, but we are just as guilty as letting this crap persist as politicians are. We blame the system and then we continue to vote exactly how that systems wants us to vote.

Link to comment

7 hours ago, teachercd said:

How though?

 

Why would Biden, if running vs Trump, not win again?

Simply put, urban vs rural polarization. Cities vote for Democrats, Rural areas for Republicans. 

 

Rural areas are bleeding people who head to cities for opportunities. This is true not only for the United States, but nearly everywhere in the world. As those Rural areas bleed citizens, they become more conservative and poor. Think of states like Iowa and Ohio, previously they were swing states but now Democrats can't compete there. The cities they move to are concentrated in just a handful of states. Think Phoenix, Atlanta, etc.

 

Now, if you extrapolate this out to all states, WI/PA/NV/etc are simply unwinnable in the future, similar to Iowa/Ohio today because their citizens are moving to cities. Now it's true that states like Arizona/Georgia are slowly turning blue (and will be unwinnable for Republicans later this decade), but no matter how many people move to Phoenix, they still only elect 2 Senators. 

 

To make a long story short, we're heading towards a future where Democrats will win elections by 8-10 million votes but lose the Electoral College. Their Senators will receive millions more votes but only hold 40-42 seats. Republican candidates are going to won not because of policy ideas (they don't bother to have any) but because demographic shifts make them win. 

 

 

 

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
7 hours ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

Hahahahahaha oh I see! TARP want big enough but all the executives at the big banks used the money to give themselves giant bonuses. Got it....

Without TARP, AIG would've taken out nearly the entire economy. Millions of jobs, credit lines, everything would've been wiped out. It would've been a great depression, likely worse. 

 

But I suppose knowing that would require you to know a little something about history outside of "government is bad".

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Enhance said:

Respectfully JJ, I think you're proving my point. Everybody thinks it's a binary, vote for the lesser of two evils situation. It's really not. But Americans continue to vote that way time and again.

 

We literally have the ability to change how the system works if we vote for better people, but we are just as guilty as letting this crap persist as politicians are. We blame the system and then we continue to vote exactly how that systems wants us to vote.

Okay, then tell me who better I could’ve voted for in the last presidential election. Explain how we the people actually get better candidates to vote for. Last time I checked nobody was giving me any say or decent options.

 

I get what you’re saying, I do. But it seems to be theoretical rather than a real option. I did vote for some half goofy independent time before last (Johnson IIRC). Fat lotta good that vote was.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

Okay, then tell me who better I could’ve voted for in the last presidential election. Explain how we the people actually get better candidates to vote for. Last time I checked nobody was giving me any say or decent options.

Options are chosen before the election. Did you review all the candidates? Did you personally weigh their pros/cons? Did you vote in the primaries?

 

Or, did you (like a lot of Americans) rely more on media publicity, advertising, the R/D next to their name, and/or a 'lesser of two evils' mentality? (BTW, I'm not asking if you literally did this. This is just what I think a lot of American do.)

 

Idid vote for some half goofy independent time before last (Johnson IIRC). Fat lotta good that vote was.

So did I, but to some people, that was either a 'wasted vote' or a 'vote for Trump' because it wasn't for Clinton. And that goes back to my point as well. It wasn't a wasted vote. That's democracy. Trump and Clinton were bad options. A lot of people SAID they thought they were bad options but didn't like the other person so most voted for them anyways.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

25 minutes ago, Enhance said:

Options are chosen before the election. Did you review all the candidates? Did you personally weigh their pros/cons? Did you vote in the primaries?

 

Or, did you (like a lot of Americans) rely more on media publicity, advertising, the R/D next to their name, and/or a 'lesser of two evils' mentality? (BTW, I'm not asking if you literally did this. This is just what I think a lot of American do.)

 

 

 

So did I, but to some people, that was either a 'wasted vote' or a 'vote for Trump' because it wasn't for Clinton. And that goes back to my point as well. It wasn't a wasted vote. That's democracy. Trump and Clinton were bad options. A lot of people SAID they thought they were bad options but didn't like the other person so most voted for them anyways.

As to your first 3 questions yes, yes and yes. Prior to Obama 2nd time, I was heavily influenced to vote for the R behind the name. I’ve since learned that is not particularly helpful so I pay a lot more attention to the things that matter.

 

But my point is, how is your way any better? Are you getting the results you want, and if not, why not? Are you changing anything? In action, is there any difference at all between voting for your best possible candidate when you and I both know they won’t actually win or voting for the lesser of two evils, one of which is going to win?

 

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess neither one of us are really happy with the people being nominated or elected. So is that everybody else’s fault because they’re doing it wrong? At the end of the day it doesn’t matter if it doesn’t give us better options or results. Sorry but a vote for a person that is going to lose is a wasted vote. It just is. I’ll still cast that wasted vote when there is no clear better choice but when it’s Trump or some of these radical whack jobs vs anybody else, I’m going with the lesser of two evils and my vote will at least help to achieve something. Your vote on principle won’t accomplish anything….and yes, that is fine and fully within your rights but it is what it is.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

Simply put, urban vs rural polarization. Cities vote for Democrats, Rural areas for Republicans. 

 

Rural areas are bleeding people who head to cities for opportunities. This is true not only for the United States, but nearly everywhere in the world. As those Rural areas bleed citizens, they become more conservative and poor. Think of states like Iowa and Ohio, previously they were swing states but now Democrats can't compete there. The cities they move to are concentrated in just a handful of states. Think Phoenix, Atlanta, etc.

 

Now, if you extrapolate this out to all states, WI/PA/NV/etc are simply unwinnable in the future, similar to Iowa/Ohio today because their citizens are moving to cities. Now it's true that states like Arizona/Georgia are slowly turning blue (and will be unwinnable for Republicans later this decade), but no matter how many people move to Phoenix, they still only elect 2 Senators. 

 

To make a long story short, we're heading towards a future where Democrats will win elections by 8-10 million votes but lose the Electoral College. Their Senators will receive millions more votes but only hold 40-42 seats. Republican candidates are going to won not because of policy ideas (they don't bother to have any) but because demographic shifts make them win. 

 

 

 

 

So, correct me if I am wrong, but if D's really walked the walk, they would move into certain areas, vote, and make sure they got the person they wanted in office...

 

But...they either don't realize that or don't really want to move because, like most people, we put ourself first.

 

I would imagine a few million D's moving to Texas could flip that state.  

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

It may seem like a long time ago for you younger folk, but in 1992, Texas Billionaire Ross Perot ran as a third party candidate, made a huge gaffe in his VP selection, dropped out of the race after accusing Republican operatives of sabotaging his daughter's wedding, then limped back in at the last second and got 19% of the vote — the most by a third party since Teddy Roosevelt.  One of the votes was mine. I honestly didn't know what I was going to do until I stepped in the booth. 

 

There was absolutely a market for a third party candidate. Ross Perot knew his business and talked like both a realist and a populist. He was in the debate with Clinton and Bush and more than held his own. Memorably, each candidate was asked for his views on abortion. Clinton and Bush did the standard hemming and hawing. Perot's answer in its entirety: "Woman's body. Woman's choice. End of story." 

 

A lot of people thought this third party thing could work, but it was mostly about Perot. They tried to build the Reform Party around him, but it was a mess of egos and inexperienced lieutenants. The Commission on Presidential Debates meanwhile created a stipulation to keep guys like Perot off the stage. The Reform Party attracted a few spotlight hogs, including Donald Trump, but almost immediately fell into irrelevance. Although Jesse Ventura ran for Minnesota Governor under the Reform Party and won.

 

I'm not a Mark Cuban fan, but he could probably pull a Perot. Someone in the glut of 2020 Democrats, like Andrew Yang, may have been better served going third party. You gotta think it's bouncing around in Elon Musk's head. 

 

2016 seemed like the perfect time for a Third Party, given the s#!tty alternatives, but there was so much fear about wasted votes.  Gary Johnson & William Weld seemed like the most appealing Libertarian ballot ever, and while their 4.5 millions was nothing to sneeze at, it was nothing close to a breakthrough. 

 

As Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders figured out, it's much easier to use the machinery of the Two Parties. 

 

But I gotta think the right person could still catch fire. 

 

 

 

  • Oh Yeah! 1
Link to comment
37 minutes ago, teachercd said:

So, correct me if I am wrong, but if D's really walked the walk, they would move into certain areas, vote, and make sure they got the person they wanted in office...

 

But...they either don't realize that or don't really want to move because, like most people, we put ourself first.

 

Are you suggesting Democrats aren't walking the walk because they selfishly decline to pull up stakes and move to a place they'd rather not live? 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

I'm not a Mark Cuban fan, but he could probably pull a Perot. Someone in the glut of 2020 Democrats, like Andrew Yang, may have been better served going third party. You gotta think it's bouncing around in Elon Musk's head.

I was thinking the same about Elon but wasn’t he born in SA? 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

2 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Are you suggesting Democrats aren't walking the walk because they selfishly decline to pull up stakes and move to a place they'd rather not live? 

I am not suggesting it, I am flat out saying it.  It is just the math speaking.

 

It sucks and I would not do it but statistically speaking, D's could.

 

 

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, teachercd said:

I am not suggesting it, I am flat out saying it.  It is just the math speaking.

 

It sucks and I would not do it but statistically speaking, D's could.

 

Can anyone look at these statistics? Cause I'd kinda like to see them.

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Can anyone look at these statistics? Cause I'd kinda like to see them.

https://www.cookpolitical.com/2020-national-popular-vote-tracker

 

Man, the D's could flat out own elections.  Just with 1.5 million moving out of Cali to other "strategic" states.

 

They would control Bama, Alaska, Ark (horrible state) and Texas.

 

I am for the popular vote, the electoral vote sort of needs to go away.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

It may seem like a long time ago for you younger folk, but in 1992, Texas Billionaire Ross Perot ran as a third party candidate, made a huge gaffe in his VP selection, dropped out of the race after accusing Republican operatives of sabotaging his daughter's wedding, then limped back in at the last second and got 19% of the vote — the most by a third party since Teddy Roosevelt.  One of the votes was mine. I honestly didn't know what I was going to do until I stepped in the booth. 

 

There was absolutely a market for a third party candidate. Ross Perot knew his business and talked like both a realist and a populist. He was in the debate with Clinton and Bush and more than held his own. Memorably, each candidate was asked for his views on abortion. Clinton and Bush did the standard hemming and hawing. Perot's answer in its entirety: "Woman's body. Woman's choice. End of story." 

 

A lot of people thought this third party thing could work, but it was mostly about Perot. They tried to build the Reform Party around him, but it was a mess of egos and inexperienced lieutenants. The Commission on Presidential Debates meanwhile created a stipulation to keep guys like Perot off the stage. The Reform Party attracted a few spotlight hogs, including Donald Trump, but almost immediately fell into irrelevance. Although Jesse Ventura ran for Minnesota Governor under the Reform Party and won.

 

I'm not a Mark Cuban fan, but he could probably pull a Perot. Someone in the glut of 2020 Democrats, like Andrew Yang, may have been better served going third party. You gotta think it's bouncing around in Elon Musk's head. 

 

2016 seemed like the perfect time for a Third Party, given the s#!tty alternatives, but there was so much fear about wasted votes.  Gary Johnson & William Weld seemed like the most appealing Libertarian ballot ever, and while their 4.5 millions was nothing to sneeze at, it was nothing close to a breakthrough. 

 

As Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders figured out, it's much easier to use the machinery of the Two Parties. 

 

But I gotta think the right person could still catch fire. 

 

 

 

Remember it well. I had just started my current job, after bouncing around 2-3 others after I got married.

 

30 years later...:blink:

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
  • Create New...