jwb

Damage control .. she obviously isn't that keen to tie her legacy to his despite being VP i wonder why ...

SGR

If Kamala was doing the 'cheerleading' job, the Dems would have even less success than they're currently having. She's unlikeable, uncharismatic and not very efficient at appearing genuine. It's probably a good thing politically that she's not doing the cheerleading. If the Dems have any sense at all, she won't be the successor.

jwb

All i know is when your QB throws an interception the only true alpha move is to chastise the cheerleaders for their lack of pep

Lisnaholic

^ HaHa! Fair enough. Perhaps she should've stuck to her old job as DA; it suited her character better, I think. In fact it probably formed her character.

^Yes I wonder why she's not keen as well. There could be many reasons linked to her personality, that fact that she is being "kept out of the loop", etc. Being embarrassed about Biden's legacy is certainly one possible reason, but hardly the only one. And what exactly is there here to be ashamed of:-

Not my fault that the US effectively only has 2 parties, and in fact I have asked before why there isn't a third party in US politics, as there is in many democratic countries.

Is the bit in bold really "according to me"? Isn't there sufficient evidence now that the GOP are:-
i) installing partisan officials in whatever electorial position they can
ii) repressing voting by reducing ballot boxes among other sim disincentives
iii) encouraging their supporters to intimidate electoral officials who don't follow the GOP party line
iii) not accepting the 2020 election result despite Bill Barr, 60 courts and (I think) the FBI saying there's no evidence of fraud.
iv) downplaying or covering up an attempted coup on and about Jan 6th
v) supporting the instigator of the coup, perhaps as candidate in the next Presidential election

Also not my fault if "Democracy or not?" is a pretty binary question. The Dems have done very few of the above, so yeah, I'd say they come across as the saviours of democracy, even if that democracy isn't "full" according to world rankings.

__________________
"Am I enjoying this moment? I know of it and perhaps that is enough." - Sybille Bedford, 1953

Lisnaholic

Lost me a bit on the details of this metaphor, jwb, but another circumstance for chastising the cheerleaders for their lack of pep is surely when the cheerleaders lack pep ?

__________________
"Am I enjoying this moment? I know of it and perhaps that is enough." - Sybille Bedford, 1953

rubber soul

I vote party line more because of philosophy but I'm not naive when had things been reversed, it would have been the Dems threatening Democracy as a way to stay in power
Not my fault that the US effectively only has 2 parties, and in fact I have asked before why there isn't a third party in US politics, as there is in many democratic countries.

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.





Back to jwb. Yes, the present GOP is guilty of all these things. But don't call the Dems innocent from a historical standpoint. The old machine politics that were once prevalent in cities had a reputation of doing very "democratic" things like ballot stuffing and intimidation of opponents. The Dems did it more on the local level historically, but that doesn't make it more noble.

I don't know who can save our Democracy. I sense that Biden would like to be that savior, but the problem doesn't lie with him or even with Trump. Blame it on Capitalism if you want, Batty (and I think it's pretty flawed as well), but ultimately, the problem is us.

__________________

jwb

sure, i don't disagree

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.

As for the Obama comparison... The first 2 years of Obama weren't good at all. He inherited a ****show etc sure but either way the Dems lost hard in 2010. So I'm not sure that's such a high bar...




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.

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?



when i say according to you i meant more the bit about the Democrats being saviors of democracy. I do agree about the Republicans.


ah see i don't think just not engaging in fascism makes you worthy of the title savior of democracy

Lisnaholic

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.

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?

^ "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...

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.

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]

__________________
"Am I enjoying this moment? I know of it and perhaps that is enough." - Sybille Bedford, 1953

jwb

"until it happens"

Except in this country it does not happen. This isn't the UK. We don't have a parliamentary system and though i couldn't get into the specifics of exactly how British politics works i know enough to know it's pretty different from our own system, where a de facto two party state has been essentially unchallenged for centuries. We've seen the parties change. We've seen parties die and be born. We've even seen them swap roles more or less. But we haven't seen a serious 3rd, 4th, etc option emerge.

When it does get considered, let's say by the green party or something, it gets shot down as a Trojan horse for the other side. It does often inadvertantly help the opposition. So that's where the lesser of two evils comes in. The two parties can always appeal to the fear of their rivals to discourage any splintering. So in essence the answer to your question of why not is linked to the description i was giving before.

The Democrats rely mainly on fear of Republicans to get elected and if you ask them why not go third party they will tell you straight up that only one of the two parties can win so they are really the only game in town.... They implicitly benefit from the lack of options and it is of course self reinforcing because the more entrenched they become the less plausible the case for third parties becomes...


what you are missing is that the point of the choice is supposed to be that we rely on the people to determine what the right choice is. It assumes the right answer is actually up for debate.

If we agree that it's not and there is only one right choice, we are only granting people the freedom to make the wrong choice. If the wrong choice is voting in an actual autocratic Trojan horse then we are giving them the freedom to destroy democracy. I don't see what utility such a choice provides. We can split hairs on whether you want to call it a "choice" but when i say it's not a real choice i mean that it is not a worthwhile choice.




if the one party state was literally the same Democratic party same agendas but they never had to negotiate with the GOP you think they would not be more effective? Wasn't your big gripe that we haven't granted them enough power? What I'm describing is functionally no different than the government that would emerge if the Democrats just so happened to consistently win every election and every seat... At that point the distinction between one party always winning and a one party state seems pretty nebulous.

i would see it that way too if it were a meaningful choice. If it's just literally the choice between good and evil just write a script to select good every 2-4 years and be done with it. Then you don't have to worry about the voters failing to give the Democrats enough power to get **** done.



i believe they are unlikely to actually save us. I will give them the credit after they do so, not beforehand.

SGR

As my father used to tell me, Democrats and Republicans are two cheeks of the same ass. And the farts smell the same no matter which cheek I prefer to slap.