Trumps Presidency 2025

[gehringer_2]

40 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

In short, the 2 party system has plenty of issues, but 1 thing its really good at, is when the country sees solutions or other good ideas that can help our country but aren't being addressed, the losers have time to understand those issues and communicate them out.  And good ideas tend to win elections.

This has been the Dems biggest problem IMO, as the middle class was becoming more an d more stressed,  instead of going for the opening and moving into new economic thinking, they if anything hewed even closer to GOP trickle down, don't rock the boat, keep the corps happy, economic conservatism, and that included Obama. Biden was the first Dem to finally start taking on middle class economic issues but his efforts in that direction were lost in a lot of other noise. Part of this is the structure of campaign finance under Citizen's United - neither party is willing to risk alienating their corporate funders, but a big piece of this is just loss of intellectual creativity. They haven't had any new ideas/approaches to offer that they could make resonate as campaign assets.

The only dems out there there that are willing to at least try to move the debate on structural economics (as opposed to just talking about more entitlements-though they do talk about that a lot too!) are the young progressives like AOC who are basically self-funding themselves through the internet. And of course Elizabeth Warren, because MA politics has always been a little different.

Edited yesterday at 03:44 AM by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

11 hours ago, ewsieg said:

Winning parties and significant third party vote are the two significant portions of your question which makes me feel the answer is close to no or no itself.

Winning parties don't change until they start losing.  In 2012 and every year before since I had turned 18 I voted republican because on a large majority of issues the country faced, I felt their policies were better.  In 2016, I refused to vote for the GOP candidate.  But I still agreed with him on the majority of the issues, so I didn't vote Dem either.  IMO Johnson was the best option for the country and I took it.  My vote, my choice.

Fast forward to 2024 and I was severely underwhelmed that Harris was the best candidate.  If you look at the last published party policies for both, I probably am still a republican as I would agree mostly with them most in regards to party platform.  But I feel I can make an argument that Trump doesn't follow many of those policies, but even more importantly to me, I don't think he follows our laws.  

Which party (in terms of POTUS) is losing right now?

Which party all of a sudden likes a lot of Libertarian policies which promote individual freedoms?

If you answered Dems to both, you'd be correct.  And because of that they currently have my vote because my freedoms "Trump" any other issue our nation is facing today, in my opinion.

All that said, those are my own priorities and they affect my vote.  Who says my priorities are better than yours?  Or who you are to say your priorities are better than mine?  

In short, the 2 party system has plenty of issues, but 1 thing its really good at, is when the country sees solutions or other good ideas that can help our country but aren't being addressed, the losers have time to understand those issues and communicate them out.  And good ideas tend to win elections.

Even if you agree with me, I guess the next question is does this still ring true today or has society outpassed those norms.

Good one overall, although I’m not sure I can agree that “good ideas tend to win elections” as much as we might like. Trump brought a lot of bad ideas the his campaign that a substantial majority of people disagreed with, but ended up winning mainly because of the weak candidacy of his opponent. Personality and popularity has always mattered when it comes to elections, and perhaps that’s even truer now.

I do agree with your opening thought. Winning parties have no incentive to change their approach based on high third-party vote counts, because for them, the winning has validated everything they campaigned on. Same as when a candidate wins an election by the thinnest of margins, then claims a broad mandate to do everything they ever wanted for themself and their benefactors that is antithetical to the losing party’s voters. Just by logic, we can see that how many votes the losers end up with matters not a whit, so the whole idea of sending a message with a third party vote crumbles. Winners win and just do what they want anyway, because they believe they have earned that right.

So when it comes down to it, voting for a third party candidate you already know is going to lose is an exercise in futility and, depending on how much you want to brag about your political savvy for voting third party in the first place, vainglory. I’s your right to do so at any time, and no one can prevent you from doing so. It’s just that there are times when the effect of your protest vote on the entire body politic, and body social, matters more than others, which should inform a voter’s decision on voting third party versus holding your nose and voting for the lesser of two evils.

[gehringer_2]

10 minutes ago, chasfh said:

So when it comes down to it, voting for a third party candidate you already know is going to lose is an exercise in futility and, depending on how much you want to brag about your political savvy for voting third party in the first place, vainglory. I’s your right to do so at any time, and no one can prevent you from doing so. It’s just that there are times when the effect of your protest vote on the entire body politic, and body social, matters more than others, which should inform a voter’s decision on voting third party versus holding your nose and voting for the lesser of two evils.

yup. 

And then there is the voter that for my money is the worst, which is the guy who pulls the lever out of tribal loyalty without even taking any real thought or regard for the potential consequences. "I don't care if the ship goes down as long as my 'side' always wins!"

Edited yesterday at 02:33 PM by gehringer_2

[Motown Bombers]

Trump was very good at providing simple solutions to complex problems. Immigration will be fixed with a wall. Manufacturing will be saved with tariffs. The rest is all fake news. 

[chasfh]

4 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

yup. 

And then there is the voter that for my money is the worst, which is the guy who pulls the lever out of tribal loyalty without even taking any real thought or regard for the potential consequences. "I don't care if the ship goes down as long as my 'side' always wins!"

I think it's just as likely that such voters twist themselves into agreement on various issues with their preferred party's candidate that they would find wholly objectionable if it was the other party's candidate.

Not unlike this ...

 

[1984Echoes]

2 hours ago, chasfh said:

I think it's just as likely that such voters twist themselves into agreement on various issues with their preferred party's candidate that they would find wholly objectionable if it was the other party's candidate.

Not unlike this ...

 

That one gets a 5-star ranking...

[ewsieg]

7 hours ago, chasfh said:

So when it comes down to it, voting for a third party candidate you already know is going to lose is an exercise in futility and, depending on how much you want to brag about your political savvy for voting third party in the first place, vainglory. I’s your right to do so at any time, and no one can prevent you from doing so. It’s just that there are times when the effect of your protest vote on the entire body politic, and body social, matters more than others, which should inform a voter’s decision on voting third party versus holding your nose and voting for the lesser of two evils.

I guess my argument is there is no protest vote.  As those that tend to lose 'close elections' will be forced to review and take on ideas that can make them better.  With that, maybe they don't lose anymore.

The Socialist party was a throw away vote, but we have child labor laws because of them.

Populist party - 8 hour work days and graduated income tax.

What's the big republican talking point you hear when minority rights are brought up.  That they were the party against slavery.  But were they?  Yes, after they realized the Free Soil party had a good argument for it.  

Call it a throw away vote all you want, but history shows it can make major impacts to society.  

[Motown Bombers]

 

[chasfh]

When everybody looks guilty, nobody looks guilty.

[romad1]

****

[romad1]

https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/who-the-fck-are-the-right-people-social-media-melts-down-over-kristi-noems-comments-on-voting/

My God

[Motown Bombers]

At least the detention facility will be close to Dearborn for all the uncommitted voters. Short term pain for long term gain they said. 

[pfife]

Deporting people you dont like apparently isnt just limited to MAGA. 

[Motown Bombers]

 

[Tigerbomb13]

They are just running with the pro-pedophiles thing now, aren’t they? 

[CMRivdogs]

 

[Motown Bombers]

What the hell did these people think Trump meant when he said mass deportation?

[romad1]

43 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

At least the detention facility will be close to Dearborn for all the uncommitted voters. Short term pain for long term gain they said. 

They can fly direct from DTW to Gaza i suppose. 

[chasfh]

2 hours ago, romad1 said:

****

So that's where they're gonna house you libtards. At least you won't have to go very far. They're gonna probably ship me to Indiana. I'll be in the rail car for hours before they march me out of there and into camp.

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, romad1 said:

https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/who-the-fck-are-the-right-people-social-media-melts-down-over-kristi-noems-comments-on-voting/

My God

It's false. Or at least until it's true. 

 

[romad1]

I guess Congress will go after this guy...oh wait, they are a rubber stamp for the administration right now. 

 

[romad1]

Massie...just caucus with the Dems and end this bull****. 

https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/this-is-the-epstein-administration-thomas-massie-trashes-trump-in-fiery-abc-hit/

[Motown Bombers]

Massie would never win re-election if he caucused with Dems. He's also so diametrically opposed to Dems. The Dems wouldn't even allow him in their caucus. He's a good ally for this fight but he needs to stay in the Republican Party and tear it down from within. 

[CMRivdogs]

55 minutes ago, romad1 said:

Massie...just caucus with the Dems and end this bull****. 

https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/this-is-the-epstein-administration-thomas-massie-trashes-trump-in-fiery-abc-hit/

I have a feeling he's going to get primaried this fall and is just saying "the hell with it"  

[gehringer_2]

Just now, CMRivdogs said:

I have a feeling he's going to get primaried this fall and is just saying "the hell with it"  

Of course he will be. And hopefully that leads to another GOP seat lost as the GOP puts up another wacko for election that can't win.