Quote:
Originally Posted by rubber soul
Yeah, I question why Biden chose her to begin with, especially after she tried to torpedo him in the primaries by suggesting he was a racist.
|
Yes, I don't remember the details of that moment, but I remember thinking at the time, "wow! That's an unkind blow."
I suspect she was chosen in part because of the diversity boxes she could tick: as a black
and Asian woman she probably helped pull in some voters.
__________________________________________________ _____________
Thanks for responding to my post, jwb.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwb
tbh i haven't been following it closely but that list is too vague for me to comment. Maybe you can list something specific you think is a big benefit or something. It's possible i give him too little credit as a function of just not paying attention. But what i have heard has sounded pretty underwhelimng.
Also, with the executive orders it was probably a bunch of reversals of Trump executive orders which can them be reversed again when a republican gets in... Those things are becoming pretty cheap.
|
Very good point about the executive orders, so they don't count for much long-term, it's true.
If I can, I'll dig up some specifics about what those trillion dollar bills mean to the man in the street, ok?
Quote:
|
well, one reason is that the lesser of two evils logic employed by the two parties always discourages any sort of schism that could inadvertantly benefit the other side.
|
^ "Always discourages" until it happens. In Britain, splinter parties don't usually do well and we return to the big two: Labour or Tory. Nevertheless, at various times, a politician has made the break and struggled along for a few election cycles. Usually the break occurs over a policy principle and with such bitterness that neither side care much about any damage they are inflicting on the other. Still waiting for Liz Cheney to set up shop with Adam Kinzinger...
Quote:
|
That's what i mean by it not really being a choice. And i didn't say that was your fault either lol. Just fundamentally we are constricted, if we take your claim about the nature of the two parties, to just keep voting blue. That's not a choice. We'd be equally served by a one party state that the Democrats controlled. Actually we'd be better served because we wouldn't have to worry every time an election comes up that the voters wouldn't swing one way or another. If it's a clear choice between good and bad then what is the utility in making that choice every 2-4 years?
|
Sorry if I was being over defensive with all my "not my fault" comments !
TBH, I don't really understand your logic about "not a real choice". As a teacher, I often set questions like this:
Yesterday I (go/went) to the bank.
Just because there's only one correct answer doesn't mean that students don't have a choice to make.
As for being better served without all the worry of elections, I don't agree at all. Some inefficiency and inconvenience attaches to the democratic process, but imo it's a price worth paying if it means keeping a one-party state at bay. Ask the people who live under an autocracy and I bet they'd swap their system in order to have a democratic voice. And as for doing it over and over again, many people would see that as a privilege, a safeguard, a chance to revise their opinion, not as a problem. If your complaint is that the GOP is spoiling the fun of choosing by constantly pushing for an autocracy, I suggest you take it up with them.
Quote:
|
ah see i don't think just not engaging in fascism makes you worthy of the title savior of democracy
|
Another comment I don't really understand. The Dems are providing an alternative to an autocratic party overthrowing a "free and fair" election. How is that NOT saving democracy?! [/QUOTE]