Trumps Presidency 2025

[pfife]

If i voted for spouse killing policy candidate and then the spouse killing policy kills my spouse, would you guys defend me from the inevitable leapords eat faces burns?

[oblong]

Yes, I promise that when a candidate comes out in favor of killing spouses and your spouse gets killed I will defend you. You can book it.

Until then, if a candidate promises policies that destroy our democracy and someone doesn't vote for the only other viable candidate because they didn't like a policy that didn't involve killing spouses, but otherwise didn't threaten our democracy, then I will hold them accountable by saying they helped cause the problem.

 

[chasfh]

12 hours ago, CMRivdogs said:

 

We are in danger of tipping over to the point to which this will never matter ever again.

[chasfh]

12 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

Why does a person vote? Is it an exercise in ego gratification to make himself feel good, or is the purpose to try and make his country a better place for he and his fellow citizens?

The fact that a person 'made a statement' with their vote does exactly who besides his own ego any good?

Both, and more.

[chasfh]

10 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

No hand waving at all. Your vote did no good, it made no difference. 

As would your recent advice that the voter just stay home if they're not going to vote for one of the two front-running horses. Both voting for the third party guy and staying home yield the same result for the two horses. So what is it we really talking about here?

[chasfh]

4 hours ago, pfife said:

In the hypothetical scenaio,   the voter isnt looking for the perfect candidate.   Theyre voting for the candidate that doesnt support killing their spouse.

That there no room for a non spouse killing candidate in your reasoning is a fault in your reasoning.  

OK, but stepping back from the very-specific, very-rare-as-to-be-practically-non-existent spouse-killing scenario, I myself believe there's a difference between voting third party because the positions of both major candidates are complete anathema to everyday life that would bring active harm to you, versus voting third party because even though you would be fine with one of the major candidates' winning, the third party guy is only marginally better than the major, or has a position you like the major doesn't that doesn't involve killing your spouse. In this case I could see the position that in the latter case, it would be better to set aside the slight preference of the third party guy in favor of the guy you would accept if he won instead, while in the former case, a third party vote is very defensible. Would like your take on this.

[chasfh]

3 hours ago, ewsieg said:

This is why you're ultimately right.  This also explains my Johnson vote.  He was the only one that I actually thought would be different AND while I knew he had no chance to win, my hope was enough people voted for him that it would force one or both parties to absorb some of those 'don't kill my wife' policies. 

Honest question: is there a historical case that winning parties ended up changing their policies in the wake of a significant third party vote tally? I don't know either way.

[chasfh]

Well, the motives here aren't suspicious at all ... 

 

[romad1]

15 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Honest question: is there a historical case that winning parties ended up changing their policies in the wake of a significant third party vote tally? I don't know either way.

Did Ross Perot change anything about the platforms of either party?  Or was he just gunning for HW Bush because of the POW/MIA issue?

[guy incognito]

[guy incognito]

Bow, bow, bow to the King

[CMRivdogs]

 

[pfife]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

OK, but stepping back from the very-specific, very-rare-as-to-be-practically-non-existent spouse-killing scenario, I myself believe there's a difference between voting third party because the positions of both major candidates are complete anathema to everyday life that would bring active harm to you, versus voting third party because even though you would be fine with one of the major candidates' winning, the third party guy is only marginally better than the major, or has a position you like the major doesn't that doesn't involve killing your spouse. In this case I could see the position that in the latter case, it would be better to set aside the slight preference of the third party guy in favor of the guy you would accept if he won instead, while in the former case, a third party vote is very defensible. Would like your take on this.

This seems fair to me.   I just think one persons 'marginally better' could easily be another persons major issue.

Theres also the issue of the whole perception of a candidate and what they support being super subjective and the result of a cacophony of propaganda 

[chasfh]

13 minutes ago, pfife said:

This seems fair to me.   I just think one persons 'marginally better' could easily be another persons major issue.

I'm thinking more in the eyes of a reasonable voting person, someone in between, say, first and fifth quintile extremes, if you can imagine such a thing as being measurable, which I grant it's not.

[chasfh]

Alternate take: They want to assure that independents can feel good about voting Republican again. 

[romad1]

8 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Alternate take: They want to assure that independents can feel good about voting Republican again. 

Getting rid of Lil' Himmler Bovino and replacing him with Cava Tom was just to provide a decent interval.  

[CMRivdogs]

Quoting Bob Dylan was a good touch

 

[Motown Bombers]

I have yet to see a third party that is actually about building a viable third party. Where the **** is Jill Stein? She’ll be back in three years like a cicada. 

[romad1]

25 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

I have yet to see a third party that is actually about building a viable third party. Where the **** is Jill Stein? She’ll be back in three years like a cicada. 

She's the common cause leftie who somehow missed out on a role in the Trump admin.  She missed her chance. 

[romad1]

Oh look

Was Jeffrey Epstein a Russian spy?

 

[Tigerbomb13]

As magaholic says, the economy is humming along 

[Edman85]

1 hour ago, Motown Bombers said:

I have yet to see a third party that is actually about building a viable third party. Where the **** is Jill Stein? She’ll be back in three years like a cicada. 

I hope she take three years to return and loses track of when the election is.

[gehringer_2]

4 hours ago, chasfh said:

As would your recent advice that the voter just stay home if they're not going to vote for one of the two front-running horses. Both voting for the third party guy and staying home yield the same result for the two horses. So what is it we really talking about here?

actually that is more or less where I was going. If you find both options that are viable candidates to win morally objectionable, no-one is forcing you to vote, but whether you don't vote or vote Quixotically you haven't helped your cause either way, which why I think the choice if you are concerned about an issue that is not at play between the viable candidates is to look for some other avenue to be active on that issue.

But TBH, I don't think we are being particularly realistic by allowing the voter to say he *really* can't see enough difference between the two viable candidates to make a choice he believes is better overall. I'll allow that in 350M people I am sure there are some for whom that was really true, but most who parroted the cynicism that 'there was no difference between the parties' and then cast  a 3rd party vote in any election since 2016 were either being willfully blind or unserious citizens. 

That is about as clearly as I can state what I believe on the issue.

Edited 1 hour ago by gehringer_2

[guy incognito]

[pfife]

1 hour ago, Tigerbomb13 said:

As magaholic says, the economy is humming along 

Jeez that 'since 2003' wpuld include the great recession.   Thats spectacularly bad.