Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
It's not OK to call someone a bad candidate when they are one? Just because we can't make a correction at this point?
No, I mean, you can say whatever you want. I just feel like the context of actual reality is important, I guess. Like, sure, on an idealistic scale, she's not great...but we've never had a candidate in my lifetime who was. In the actual world we live in, who would've been better, even if we were able to have a mini-primary (and "better" here, to me, meaning "most electable")? Newsom? Whitmer? Buttigieg? Each of them brings their own baggage that I'd argue is on par with Harris'. Plus, again, I think the importance of not alienating Black voters can't be understated.
So, yeah, I dunno. I just don't know what would have been better, so it strikes me as odd to say it was a bad choice.
I can agree with most of this. And for **** sake, no Newsom. The slimiest most repulsive MF around. Hard to believe Harris isn't even the worst candidate in her own state, but yea. That's how things go these days.
Post by itrainmonkeys on Jul 24, 2024 13:47:03 GMT -5
On the Kamala choice....I don't love her but I also kind of voted for Biden in 2020 expecting him to be a one term president then having her at least be the nominee this election anyway.
Not my choice....but neither are probably a number of options that they could have chosen instead. So I'm fine backing her.
Again, voting for anyone against Trump. Even if my vote doesn't make a difference in NY I'm certainly never voting for Trump and not going to refuse to vote based on the Dem nom
No, I mean, you can say whatever you want. I just feel like the context of actual reality is important, I guess. Like, sure, on an idealistic scale, she's not great...but we've never had a candidate in my lifetime who was. In the actual world we live in, who would've been better, even if we were able to have a mini-primary (and "better" here, to me, meaning "most electable")? Newsom? Whitmer? Buttigieg? Each of them brings their own baggage that I'd argue is on par with Harris'. Plus, again, I think the importance of not alienating Black voters can't be understated.
So, yeah, I dunno. I just don't know what would have been better, so it strikes me as odd to say it was a bad choice.
I can agree with most of this. And for **** sake, no Newsom. The slimiest most repulsive MF around. Hard to believe Harris isn't even the worst candidate in her own state, but yea. That's how things go these days.
Not being snarky, genuinely curious on who would be a good option for GOP VP or Dem Prez in your opinion.
Who should it have been if not Kamala Harris? Keeping in mind what passing over the Black woman first in line would have said to Black voters, particularly Black women, who are a crucial voting bloc.
Fire away.
It's not only that, and she's energized (lol at the DEI candidate smears, those dumb racist mfers) the Democratic party and minorities in general who were maybe not giving much of a shit about Joe at this point. But it's got to do with the campaign coffers and staff that's already in place. Trump campaign, to no one's surprise, claims this is "illegal" and has filed a complaint with the FEC. The answer appears to be somewhat complicated though I'd lean on the fact that she was always part of the campaign for president - just in a different capacity.
I'm definitely on record in this thread as being concerned/dubious about Kamala taking over the campaign for a variety of reasons, ultimately boiling down to her having the lowest upside of the major theoretical contenders. That said: she's had a hell of a week so far and has quieted a lot of my doubts; I'm not at all surprised by the fundraising but her speeches have been solid. One big thing: I expected her to be hamstrung by being tied to the Biden administration on inflation. Looks like voters aren't holding her accountable there though, which represents a major opportunity: www.semafor.com/article/07/23/2024/the-upside-for-harris-is-huge-democratic-poll-finds-kamala-needs-to-define-her-brand-quickly
It's also just damn nice to see so much positive energy the last few days. The vibes are good. Her upside is looking better than I had thought. Keep it going!
I can agree with most of this. And for **** sake, no Newsom. The slimiest most repulsive MF around. Hard to believe Harris isn't even the worst candidate in her own state, but yea. That's how things go these days.
Not being snarky, genuinely curious on who would be a good option for GOP VP or Dem Prez in your opinion.
Good question, I'm not sure who I'd even consider a "viable" candidate anymore. I'll have to think about it. I've hated pretty much every candidate on both sides (even during primary) for as long as I can remember. I'm kind of a Ron Paul guy I guess. But that's even not completely on target.
Not being snarky, genuinely curious on who would be a good option for GOP VP or Dem Prez in your opinion.
Good question, I'm not sure who I'd even consider a "viable" candidate anymore. I'll have to think about it. I've hated pretty much every candidate on both sides (even during primary) for as long as I can remember. I'm kind of a Ron Paul guy I guess. But that's even not completely on target.
Ron Paul is exactly who I thought you would mention.
Not being snarky, genuinely curious on who would be a good option for GOP VP or Dem Prez in your opinion.
Good question, I'm not sure who I'd even consider a "viable" candidate anymore. I'll have to think about it. I've hated pretty much every candidate on both sides (even during primary) for as long as I can remember. I'm kind of a Ron Paul guy I guess. But that's even not completely on target.
Good question, I'm not sure who I'd even consider a "viable" candidate anymore. I'll have to think about it. I've hated pretty much every candidate on both sides (even during primary) for as long as I can remember. I'm kind of a Ron Paul guy I guess. But that's even not completely on target.
Ron Paul is exactly who I thought you would mention.
That’s fair, and I know nobody here probably likes anything close to that. But that’s fine. I’m not here to argue. I I know any favoritism to anything that isn’t far left on here is going to be ridiculed.
Post by abefroman1 on Jul 24, 2024 15:15:34 GMT -5
Say what you want about conservatives but at least some of them (in their ignorance) think their ideas of solutions will improve society/white people/men.
While people that criticize everything without offering any solutions, tend to gravitate towards Ron Paul types.
Ron Paul is exactly who I thought you would mention.
That’s fair, and I know nobody here probably likes anything close to that. But that’s fine. I’m not here to argue. I I know any favoritism to anything that isn’t far left on here is going to be ridiculed.
I'm not going to ridicule you because 1) I know you and like you and 2) everyone is entitled to their opinions. I have a few issues with Paul. He's not as bad as his son Rand, but the libertarianism was somewhat selective and quite a bit different from the Ed Clark days. Also he kind of grifted (not that I blame him) off the gold sales to the people who supported him politically. I realize he believed in hard currencies but he also had a financial interest in other people pushing up the prices. So it wasn't clean. Also his supporters (right and left) sort of put their own image of him onto his candidacy which is why he had cross appeal from radicals and reactionaries. Libertarianism often did bring right and left together because of the conservative fiscal policies and very liberal social policies. Not sure if that's still their platform as I've tuned them out in recent years.
Post by abefroman1 on Jul 24, 2024 15:24:39 GMT -5
Anyways, changing course, rumors that trump is sick of JD Vance already. Chances he goes full 2005 reality show on his ass and trades him in for someone that actually could win over those weirdo swing voters?
Also, someone with more knowledge of the process, could he legally fire him or is it locked in?
Anyways, changing course, rumors that trump is sick of JD Vance already. Chances he goes full 2005 reality show on his ass and trades him in for someone that actually could win over those weirdo swing voters?
Also, someone with more knowledge of the process, could he legally fire him or is it locked in?
no way to abort after the convention. The pro-life party gets to live with their choice.
Anyways, changing course, rumors that trump is sick of JD Vance already. Chances he goes full 2005 reality show on his ass and trades him in for someone that actually could win over those weirdo swing voters?
Also, someone with more knowledge of the process, could he legally fire him or is it locked in?
no way to abort after the convention. The pro-life party gets to live with their choice.
He could probably find a way to pay off JD to get him to resign. JD makes up something about the abuse his wife and kids have taken (from his own party...) and quits, Trump gets a new pick. It happened in '72.
JD's likely too power hungry for that though. And Thiel wouldn't let it happen.
That’s fair, and I know nobody here probably likes anything close to that. But that’s fine. I’m not here to argue. I I know any favoritism to anything that isn’t far left on here is going to be ridiculed.
I'm not going to ridicule you because 1) I know you and like you and 2) everyone is entitled to their opinions. I have a few issues with Paul. He's not as bad as his son Rand, but the libertarianism was somewhat selective and quite a bit different from the Ed Clark days. Also he kind of grifted (not that I blame him) off the gold sales to the people who supported him politically. I realize he believed in hard currencies but he also had a financial interest in other people pushing up the prices. So it wasn't clean. Also his supporters (right and left) sort of put their own image of him onto his candidacy which is why he had cross appeal from radicals and reactionaries. Libertarianism often did bring right and left together because of the conservative fiscal policies and very liberal social policies. Not sure if that's still their platform as I've tuned them out in recent years.
It's ok, I know you and like you too so feel free to pile on
I never posted in this thread because I knew it would only be a matter of time before someone's ears perked and asked "Oh you don't like our hand, well what cards are YOU holding?" lmao. And from there it would be typical political bashing.
Anyways, changing course, rumors that trump is sick of JD Vance already. Chances he goes full 2005 reality show on his ass and trades him in for someone that actually could win over those weirdo swing voters?
Also, someone with more knowledge of the process, could he legally fire him or is it locked in?
If McCain couldn’t get rid of Palin, then Trump is stuck with Vance. And there is no way in hell Vance will step down.
Anyways, changing course, rumors that trump is sick of JD Vance already. Chances he goes full 2005 reality show on his ass and trades him in for someone that actually could win over those weirdo swing voters?
Also, someone with more knowledge of the process, could he legally fire him or is it locked in?
If McCain couldn’t get rid of Palin, then Trump is stuck with Vance. And there is no way in hell Vance will step down.
I don't think it will happen but Trump is much more erratic than McCain and Vance was introduced quite a bit earlier in the election than Palin. Though I think there might be some legal hurdles involved but I guess if Trump asked him to drop off the ticket voluntarily he probably would as embarrassing as that would be.
no way to abort after the convention. The pro-life party gets to live with their choice.
He could probably find a way to pay off JD to get him to resign. JD makes up something about the abuse his wife and kids have taken (from his own party...) and quits, Trump gets a new pick. It happened in '72.
JD's likely too power hungry for that though. And Thiel wouldn't let it happen.
Spiro Agnew got reelected with Nixon in 1972. He didnt resign until 1973
He could probably find a way to pay off JD to get him to resign. JD makes up something about the abuse his wife and kids have taken (from his own party...) and quits, Trump gets a new pick. It happened in '72.
JD's likely too power hungry for that though. And Thiel wouldn't let it happen.
Spiro Agnew got reelected with Nixon in 1972. He didnt resign until 1973
I was referring to Thomas Eagleton, who dropped out as McGovern's VP a couple weeks after the DNC in 72.
I cannot for the life of me* get this Spotify link to work, but Vox's Today, Explained pod has a good episode on Project 2025 for anyone - like me - new to the prospect and want 20-some minutes of information.
*tried for 2 minutes, want to get back to making dinner