973
Trump aides alarmed he's 'just golfing all day and stewing' as election slips away: WaPo
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2024
973 points (97.6% liked)
politics
19090 readers
4542 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well then, thank God she didn't win!
I blame the DNC.
I didn't vote for Trump either.
Yes, I figured as much when you said you voted 3rd party. Unless we get ranked choice or some other form of voting, we are going to get a president from one of the two main parties for the foreseeable future. Until then, a vote for the person who shares 90% of your views instead of 75% will help the guy who shares 5% of your views with you. Not to mention that the 75% candidate had about a decade of being dragged through the mud prior to the election to make her seem worse than she really is.
I (and a lot of others) are not going to "Toe the line" for whoever the DNC shoves down our throats if we don't feel like it. The DNC learned a good lesson in 2016. I'm not ashamed that I didn't vote for Hillary just because she was "better than Trump". I didn't like either candidate, so I voted third party to help boost their numbers to help get away from a 2 party system. I'm not sorry for that, and whatever shit you give me isn't going to change my opinion.
In 1992, Ross Perot got about 20% of the popular vote as a third party candidate. How did that "help get away from a 2 party system"? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm curious.
What "lesson" do you think the DNC learned in 2016?
What's your plan to institute ranked voice voting & national popular vote?
I wasn't old enough to vote in the 1992 election. I was only 15.
I think the DNC learned that pushing a candidate that wasn't well liked isn't going to win them an election, just because that's who they wanted to put in the spotlight. (Anecdotal based on my personal conversations. I haven't researched it.)
Reducing the 15% National electorate requirement by the FEC for presidential debates would be a start. This allows lesser known parties and candidates a voice on the national stage and gives them more national coverage.
I'm just a random person. I personally don't have a plan how to institute ranked choice voting, but I would absolutely vote for a ranked choice voting system rather than keeping the current 2 party system.
This is what they actually learned.
We barely averted Biden as the Moderate Placator in 2024, running on the fear and hate of the Republican Party to make an otherwise moderate in Kamala Harris our standard-bearer, but if she keeps up with the talks about price controls, we MIGHT just find out if the lessons of 1968, 1980, and 1984 still apply.
And Jackie's Fridge is right. In an election split 51 (Left) and 49 (Right), if you can convince 3 Left-Leaning voters to vote Third Party, you have convinced them to throw away their votes and assure all 51 voters on the Left get what they DON'T want while the Conservatives win on a 49/48/3 split. Unless and until you use a voting system that allows those 3 votes to NOT give the win to the 48 voters, voting third party is just helping the major party most opposed to your platform win. And if you need any evidence of how this screws up Leftists, look no further than our northern neighbour, Canada, specifically Ontario, where vote-splitting between the two major Left-Wing parties (Liberal, New Democratic Party) lets the Conservative party run the show.
"Boosting their numbers" in the single biggest election doesn't make them a viable party. Third party candidates got an average of 5% of the vote in the 2016 presidential election (unless you include Utah to blow the bell curve to a whopping 7%).
Getting that party's candidates established in local governments across the nation so they gain a following, experience, and momentum is what does make them viable. It's not easy, but it's the only way. Zero people care who didn't win the presidential election or why - it's winner take all. No message is received.
I don't care. I didn't like either candidate and voted accordingly. 2016 wasn't my fault. Put up a better candidate and I would have voted for them.
I mean, wasn't it?
The only people that can claim that are folks that voted for Hillary. Not voting or voting third party, you're still participating, you're just pulling the lever that reads, "I'll go with whoever the majority is".
That year it turned out to be Trump. You did choose, a passive choice is still a choice.
You're right. I did make a choice. I made a choice to not vote for either of those fuck heads. I'm not sorry I didn't vote for Hillary. You want my vote, put up a better candidate. Still don't think it was my fault.
Look, you can do what you want, but you should stop pretending you somehow aren't partly responsible for a Trump presidency because you went third party. If a restaurant offers chicken or beef, and you say "whatever everyone is having", and they gave you chicken?
You did choose. You chose chicken.
You said, "I don't really care what I get, let other people decide." Letting other people decide for you is still a choice.
That's the thing. I was offered Chicken or Beef and wasn't interested in either, so I ordered shrimp.
Still not sorry I didn't vote for Hillary.
Like I said before, offer me something I'm interested in and you have my support. If you don't, you don't have my support.
The restaurant isn't selling shrimp, bud. I don't know what to tell ya.
You're not 5 years old. Pick what you want to eat, and stop complaining about it. It's chicken or beef, what do you want? I mean, there's ways around it? You could have cooked at home, there's a reason people tell you to vote down ballot, pay attention to local races, bring up people through the system etc.
All that is work. It takes time. And you have to do the dishes afterwards. You didn't want to do any of that, (Honestly I don't either) so we're both eating at the same restaurant.
And unfortunately, that means we get to eat what the restaurant is selling. Chicken or beef.
Voting is the lowest possible effort you can make when participating in the political process. And not voting is as much a choice as voting for the options others present to you. You just chose to do whatever the group decides.
You're doing the equivalent of showing up at the end of a group project you skipped out on and expecting everyone to redo all their work because you don't like either of the options presented.
No amount of whining and moaning is going to change the fact that you're still getting the same grade everyone else is getting. You are getting on everyone's nerves though. Nobody likes a lazy entitled dude that 'thinks' he should be in charge but isn't willing to actually do any work.
You can choose not to vote. But if things go wrong, don't claim you're somehow above it all.
It's frankly ridiculous.
There's more on the menu than chicken or beef. I can order whatever I want. I could order Mickey Mouse or Vermin Love Supreme. Regardless of what was served to me, I ordered what I ordered. Just because everyone else is fine with dry ass chicken or tough chewy beef, doesn't mean I'm okay with it.
Okay bud. Good luck out there.
😘