• 0 Posts
  • 539 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 16th, 2023

help-circle



  • I think the third party is a valid thing to keep in mind. The Republicans are a bit more “ends justify the means”, which translates to not letting themselves get distracted by “perfect is the enemy of the good”. So they might even prefer a third party, but they are less likely to because they tend to be a bit more coldly strategic in their voting.

    With respect to they can ignore the results of the primary vote… but that’s exactly the sort of thing that people accussed them of when they put Hilary Clinton up as their candidate. So the right can tear into them for ‘coronating’ their candidate instead of doing an election.

    While they can put up someone else, it would be a pretty desperate act, and it’s hard to know which bad option is the worst of the options.


  • I would say that Jill Stein’s platform is broadly impractical. It’s largely a wishlist of “things that would be cool if they were the case” generally bereft of “how it will be acheived” and ill equipped to deal with harsh realities.

    The most pervasive issue is her platform asserts that it will do things that are beyond the authority of a presidential administration. Much of what she promises are the responsibility of congress, not the executive branch. She promises ranked choice voting but that’s not even the authority of the federal government, that’s the states. She even goes so far as to declare that foreign nations would basically act the way she tells them to. Meanwhile the Green Party despite fielding a presidential candidate is utterly missing in enough down ballot elections making it a guarantee that such a hypothetical presidential win would be lame duck from inauguration.

    There’s also some inconsistencies. Like allowing the UN Security Council to hold Israel Accountable, but at the same time wanting to abolish the UN Security Council.

    Then the flat-out bad ideas, like disbanding NATO. Her platform reads like she believes Russia would just be nice if NATO didn’t exist, that the US and NATO is the cause of the invasion of Ukraine. Maybe there was an opportunity there in the 90s if the world had helped Russia differently in the wake of the USSR collapse, but that opportunity, for now, has passed. Fairly sure if she had her wish that we’d probably see Taiwan fall to China, South Korea fall to North Korea (with Chinese and Russian help), and Russia take much of eastern Europe.



  • do some really sketchy stuff. Simply put “war”

    Note that as bad as that is and as evil as it has sometimes been, it is “legal”, and thus not subject to criminal prosecution. It is specifically legal for the president to do that sketchy stuff.

    For an “official” act to be illegal, but not subject to prosecution just makes no sense. It shouldn’t be possible for an illegal act to be “official”.

    Extra bonkers is the 5/4 opinion that you can’t even mention official acts, like if you accept a bribe in exchange for an appointment, you can’t mention the appointment while trying to prosecute the bribe.


  • The third party situation currently is inherently going to draw candidates that are not practically minded. Any one that might align with a third party platform but have any hint of practicality go participate with one of the two likely parties.

    In some areas, it’s not even two parties, it’s just one of the two. In those areas, you’ll see both left and right candidates in the primary for the practical choice, and the other mainstream party devolves into the same state as “third parties”, with far out impractical people trying to run.

    Election reform to make third party candidates viable would lead to more practical sensibilities in those third parties




  • This is my thought. I could imagine Biden announcing that Obama was coming in to play a very key role in his administration and that might give him a boost. That while technically the buck stops with Biden still, that Obama is very close to contribute.

    This would sidestep the “annointed one” problem, avoid skipping the primary, and while it’s short of a new candidate, it gets a very popular person near the presidency who couldn’t have been the candidate.

    I couldn’t imagine them starting from scratch at this point, couldn’t imagine who they would pick that people would already resonate with.




  • I was thinking the debate rules actually saved Trump from his worst impulses. Biden was allowed to speak at full length and Trump gets to appear like he can participate in a civilized conversation while Biden would sometimes go off the rails while trying to fill his time. A lot of his embarrassments started in a decent place, but pivoted badly in the middle.

    Trump confidently lied repeatedly without consequences, and so long as someone is unaware that it’s lies, I could imagine them finding Trump’s rhetoric credible that night.


  • I’ll agree, but he was at the same time more bold, like saying everyone wanted to overturn Roe v Wade. Confident and competent lying can get you far, but if you lie about how the people watching would feel, you undermine all your other lying.

    There are few things more maddening than claiming you know how someone feels more than they themselves do. A very credible liar can be undone if they lie that well on a matter the audience personally knows better. Suddenly all the benefit of the doubt purchased by the confidence is erased.