Re: Gavin Newsom on MSNBC

26
highdesert wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 10:33 am TNG cool it. Parties haven't nominated their candidates, 2024 is eons away. Biden isn't saying anything about running because of campaign laws, Newsom is running but denying it.

CNN has a list of Democrats you can chew on.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/20/politics ... den-harris
Well you can certainly start with the party's platform. I doubt they will change much. It's all just going to come out of a different mouth.

Seriously instead of just mouthing off against the current statas quo lets hear what third party is aligned with your pie in the sky platform? It's not a hard question. All ya gotta do is go read up on the other party's platforms.
Oh, lets not forget about the new Party whats his name wants to start. You could go invest a hundred bucks in that one. Hit the streets and do some door to door.
A rain a-fall, but the dirt it tough
A yut a yook, but yood nah nuff
- Bob Marley

Re: Gavin Newsom on MSNBC

27
I agree it's a bombastic war and Republicans are better at drawing out the wedge issues without a lot of rhetoric and creating buzzwords and phrases that the media picks up. Democrats and Republicans both have working class members, along with middle class, wealthy and super wealthy members. Once upon a time, Democrats knew how to talk with working class members and understood their issues, I think they're now more comfortable with the highly educated and wealthier party members and have forgotten their roots.

Republicans especially Trumpers have made a point of pursuing the white working class and extol their claimed "victimhood". Sure they exploit them like all political parties exploit groups. Each side thinks they are absolutely right and aren't willing to look at issues from a different perspective, so the two parties win and the political divide continues. The rich and powerful have determined each party's issues and where each party stands on them and they won't change, because they have the money and power in the party. Multiple parties aren't perfect, but it would give us more choices and if parties didn't respond to voters, people could form new parties.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Gavin Newsom on MSNBC

28
tonguengroover wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 1:14 pm
highdesert wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 10:33 am TNG cool it. Parties haven't nominated their candidates, 2024 is eons away. Biden isn't saying anything about running because of campaign laws, Newsom is running but denying it.

CNN has a list of Democrats you can chew on.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/20/politics ... den-harris
Well you can certainly start with the party's platform. I doubt they will change much. It's all just going to come out of a different mouth.

Seriously instead of just mouthing off against the current statas quo lets hear what third party is aligned with your pie in the sky platform? It's not a hard question. All ya gotta do is go read up on the other party's platforms.
Oh, lets not forget about the new Party whats his name wants to start. You could go invest a hundred bucks in that one. Hit the streets and do some door to door.
Third parties have no chance of winning national office in the US, they exist for protest purposes. The two major parties don't want third parties and they make it difficult for them to form and get financing. I'm a registered independent and sometimes I don't vote for anyone on the ballot, I just leave an office blank.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Gavin Newsom on MSNBC

29
highdesert wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 1:26 pm I agree it's a bombastic war and Republicans are better at drawing out the wedge issues without a lot of rhetoric and creating buzzwords and phrases that the media picks up. Democrats and Republicans both have working class members, along with middle class, wealthy and super wealthy members. Once upon a time, Democrats knew how to talk with working class members and understood their issues, I think they're now more comfortable with the highly educated and wealthier party members and have forgotten their roots.

Republicans especially Trumpers have made a point of pursuing the white working class and extol their claimed "victimhood". Sure they exploit them like all political parties exploit groups. Each side thinks they are absolutely right and aren't willing to look at issues from a different perspective, so the two parties win and the political divide continues. The rich and powerful have determined each party's issues and where each party stands on them and they won't change, because they have the money and power in the party. Multiple parties aren't perfect, but it would give us more choices and if parties didn't respond to voters, people could form new parties.
Agree, especially with the bold. Political parties are meant to serve a purpose and that purpose used to be to represent the needs of a group of people. When they cease to do that, it’s time to recycle.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Gavin Newsom on MSNBC

30
What keeps us out of a 3rd party is election rules in each state, its not really the big money that's driving it. The two parties have constructed laws that make it basically impossible for a 3rd party to really get any traction in US politics. This is why no money goes to them, because even if they had all the money in the world, there's a lot of primaries that are only for the two parties.
“I think there’s a right-wing conspiracy to promote the idea of a left-wing conspiracy”

Re: Gavin Newsom on MSNBC

31
FrontSight wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 4:04 pm What keeps us out of a 3rd party is election rules in each state, its not really the big money that's driving it. The two parties have constructed laws that make it basically impossible for a 3rd party to really get any traction in US politics. This is why no money goes to them, because even if they had all the money in the world, there's a lot of primaries that are only for the two parties.
And who's pushing those rules? The people big money got in there, that's who.

Re: Gavin Newsom on MSNBC

32
featureless wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 5:34 pm
FrontSight wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 4:04 pm What keeps us out of a 3rd party is election rules in each state, its not really the big money that's driving it. The two parties have constructed laws that make it basically impossible for a 3rd party to really get any traction in US politics. This is why no money goes to them, because even if they had all the money in the world, there's a lot of primaries that are only for the two parties.
And who's pushing those rules? The people big money got in there, that's who.
Yep.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Gavin Newsom on MSNBC

33
I'll just say this and not say another word about it.
Vote how you will or don't vote at all but mark my words this may be the last time you have the option to vote in a free election because if the repugs win democracy is all over. Done.
And It shall be on your shoulders that our republic has ended and fascism rules our country forever.
May a God bless our souls.
A rain a-fall, but the dirt it tough
A yut a yook, but yood nah nuff
- Bob Marley

Re: Gavin Newsom on MSNBC

34
Choosing the least bad (aka better) from two imperfect options is infinitely logical. We all do it every day. If I forget to bring my lunch to work, I can go to the cafeteria (overpriced and not very good) or I can skip lunch and go hungry until I get home. Neither option is ideal, both have major drawbacks, but I can still choose. On any given day, one option will be better than the other and I’ll choose that one. Not choosing is still a choice.

If wellness increase is not a viable option, choosing harm reduction is inherently logical. Keeping Q-cultists and election deniers out of office is harm reduction.

All voting is strategic. When I vote, I’m not looking for a soul mate. I’m looking at a web of pros and cons and possible outcomes based on the state of the union and the current makeup of the government and comparing and contrasting between candidates. For example, in 2016, the future of the SCOTUS, and by extension, the future of Roe Vs Wade was just one of many threads under consideration. Voting for people who are polling less than one percent and can’t possibly win is the same as not voting, and therefore not an option. And sometimes (often), not voting is actually voting.

Newsom vs Trump or DeSantis? Are you effing kidding me? I would vote for Newsome without the slightest hesitation.

Also, Italy has a multiparty system and they just put the fascists in power. No matter the system, compromise, strategic voting, and vigilance are required to safeguard a republic. Sometimes you have to vote for assholes to keep far bigger assholes out of power. Anything less is tiddlywinks in fantasy land. Fantasy land is nice, but it’s not real.

Disclaimer: The above works for me. YMMV. I’m not looking for an argument, I’m trying to clarify a point of view.
www.schayden.com

Re: Gavin Newsom on MSNBC

35
sikacz wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 9:18 am I’ve already mentioned the alternatives and options and in this thread too. Got to learn to read and understand context. I don’t believe in the two party systems, that should be clear and we have multiple choices to choose from every election. Some people just don’t seem to grasp that change doesn’t happen if you limit yourself to the alternatives the two parties want to present. The reason some people here don’t want to embrace a new path or change is simple, you like the two party dominated stranglehold and the policies they push and represent. I don’t.
Sadly, the game is rigged in favor of the two major parties, even as corrupted as they both are (one more than the other obviously!).

Newscum or Der Trumpenfuhrer/DeSatan, those will likely be your choices, with some fringe Progressives and Nazis along for the ride just sucking votes away from the contenders (remembering that Sanders split the dem vote paving the way for Der Trumpenfuhrer in 2016).

Be advised that if the the Nazis win the next two elections, there might not be any more free and fair elections here ever (seeing the they own SCOTUS and a lot of swing state governments!)?

Re: Gavin Newsom on MSNBC

36
DJD100 wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 10:49 pm
sikacz wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 9:18 am I’ve already mentioned the alternatives and options and in this thread too. Got to learn to read and understand context. I don’t believe in the two party systems, that should be clear and we have multiple choices to choose from every election. Some people just don’t seem to grasp that change doesn’t happen if you limit yourself to the alternatives the two parties want to present. The reason some people here don’t want to embrace a new path or change is simple, you like the two party dominated stranglehold and the policies they push and represent. I don’t.
Sadly, the game is rigged in favor of the two major parties, even as corrupted as they both are (one more than the other obviously!).

Newscum or Der Trumpenfuhrer/DeSatan, those will likely be your choices, with some fringe Progressives and Nazis along for the ride just sucking votes away from the contenders (remembering that Sanders split the dem vote paving the way for Der Trumpenfuhrer in 2016).

Be advised that if the the Nazis win the next two elections, there might not be any more free and fair elections here ever (seeing the they own SCOTUS and a lot of swing state governments!)?
That’s probably a good reason to protect the bill of rights. It might be the last thing we do as a free people, resist. Voting sure hasn’t given us what we need.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Gavin Newsom on MSNBC

37
The funny thing is, many (most, even) Republicans feel the same about their choices. Trump was an anomaly in that he wasn't party establishment and that attracted interest from the dissalusioned right. He appealed to the working class white who have been mostly abandoned by the Dems. He appealed to the nutters. Lots of thinking people knew he was no good but, when faced with Clinton, did just what y'all are suggesting and went for their version of the lesser of the two turds in the punch bowl. What a deal.

I frankly find Newsom to be the Democrat version of Trump (just like that fucker Bloomberg was). A vile person who places his own aspiration above all else. Just because his policies align more closely to mine than that orange asshole's did doesn't make him palletable. Still just another turd in the punch bowl.

Re: Gavin Newsom on MSNBC

38
featureless wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 11:09 pm The funny thing is, many (most, even) Republicans feel the same about their choices. Trump was an anomaly in that he wasn't party establishment and that attracted interest from the dissalusioned right. He appealed to the working class white who have been mostly abandoned by the Dems. He appealed to the nutters. Lots of thinking people knew he was no good but, when faced with Clinton, did just what y'all are suggesting and went for their version of the lesser of the two turds in the punch bowl. What a deal.

I frankly find Newsom to be the Democrat version of Trump (just like that fucker Bloomberg was). A vile person who places his own aspiration above all else. Just because his policies align more closely to mine than that orange asshole's did doesn't make him palletable. Still just another turd in the punch bowl.
Oh, I absolutely agree which is a sad statement. Can’t support that ass even if he runs against an even bigger fascist. At some point a realization needs to set in, the lesser of two evils doesn’t work. If it’s inevitable that we face the downfall of democracy and fascism, it’s better to have it occur sooner than later.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Gavin Newsom on MSNBC

39
Greengunner wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 9:27 pm Choosing the least bad (aka better) from two imperfect options is infinitely logical. We all do it every day. If I forget to bring my lunch to work, I can go to the cafeteria (overpriced and not very good) or I can skip lunch and go hungry until I get home. Neither option is ideal, both have major drawbacks, but I can still choose. On any given day, one option will be better than the other and I’ll choose that one. Not choosing is still a choice.

If wellness increase is not a viable option, choosing harm reduction is inherently logical. Keeping Q-cultists and election deniers out of office is harm reduction.

All voting is strategic. When I vote, I’m not looking for a soul mate. I’m looking at a web of pros and cons and possible outcomes based on the state of the union and the current makeup of the government and comparing and contrasting between candidates. For example, in 2016, the future of the SCOTUS, and by extension, the future of Roe Vs Wade was just one of many threads under consideration. Voting for people who are polling less than one percent and can’t possibly win is the same as not voting, and therefore not an option. And sometimes (often), not voting is actually voting.

Newsom vs Trump or DeSantis? Are you effing kidding me? I would vote for Newsome without the slightest hesitation.

Also, Italy has a multiparty system and they just put the fascists in power. No matter the system, compromise, strategic voting, and vigilance are required to safeguard a republic. Sometimes you have to vote for assholes to keep far bigger assholes out of power. Anything less is tiddlywinks in fantasy land. Fantasy land is nice, but it’s not real.

Disclaimer: The above works for me. YMMV. I’m not looking for an argument, I’m trying to clarify a point of view.
Yup, we all have to make choices when voting. I think all of us here look at many issues when we vote, it's prioritizing which ones are most important. Some people are single issue voters like abortion or 2A or the environment... CA is so blue in presidential elections that I don't need to even vote for that office, because the state is a guaranteed 54 electoral votes for the Democratic presidential candidate.

Yes Italy has a multiparty parliamentary system of government and they just elected a center-right government like Sweden. Italy just reformed it's parliament recently, reducing the size of both chambers and they have first-past-the-post plus proportional representation voting systems. Multiparty systems just mean there are more voices in government, because governments are almost always coalitions of parties not a single party like the US. Some countries have had "national unity governments", when none of the major parties can form a coalition, Germany and Israel are examples.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Gavin Newsom on MSNBC

40
highdesert wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:16 am
Greengunner wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 9:27 pm Choosing the least bad (aka better) from two imperfect options is infinitely logical. We all do it every day. If I forget to bring my lunch to work, I can go to the cafeteria (overpriced and not very good) or I can skip lunch and go hungry until I get home. Neither option is ideal, both have major drawbacks, but I can still choose. On any given day, one option will be better than the other and I’ll choose that one. Not choosing is still a choice.

If wellness increase is not a viable option, choosing harm reduction is inherently logical. Keeping Q-cultists and election deniers out of office is harm reduction.

All voting is strategic. When I vote, I’m not looking for a soul mate. I’m looking at a web of pros and cons and possible outcomes based on the state of the union and the current makeup of the government and comparing and contrasting between candidates. For example, in 2016, the future of the SCOTUS, and by extension, the future of Roe Vs Wade was just one of many threads under consideration. Voting for people who are polling less than one percent and can’t possibly win is the same as not voting, and therefore not an option. And sometimes (often), not voting is actually voting.

Newsom vs Trump or DeSantis? Are you effing kidding me? I would vote for Newsome without the slightest hesitation.

Also, Italy has a multiparty system and they just put the fascists in power. No matter the system, compromise, strategic voting, and vigilance are required to safeguard a republic. Sometimes you have to vote for assholes to keep far bigger assholes out of power. Anything less is tiddlywinks in fantasy land. Fantasy land is nice, but it’s not real.

Disclaimer: The above works for me. YMMV. I’m not looking for an argument, I’m trying to clarify a point of view.
Yup, we all have to make choices when voting. I think all of us here look at many issues when we vote, it's prioritizing which ones are most important. Some people are single issue voters like abortion or 2A or the environment... CA is so blue in presidential elections that I don't need to even vote for that office, because the state is a guaranteed 54 electoral votes for the Democratic presidential candidate.

Yes Italy has a multiparty parliamentary system of government and they just elected a center-right government like Sweden. Italy just reformed it's parliament recently, reducing the size of both chambers and they have first-past-the-post plus proportional representation voting systems. Multiparty systems just mean there are more voices in government, because governments are almost always coalitions of parties not a single party like the US. Some countries have had "national unity governments", when none of the major parties can form a coalition, Germany and Israel are examples.
Good piece there, Gg. And Hd, it's true that multiparty systems force coalitions. I'd like to see more viable parties. I've not voted for Dems for a long time but for Joe to make a point. California, it's true, has been blue presidentially for some cycles now. I always vote left. Trying to vote out my red congresscritter.

CDFingers
Image
Image
Nothing's for certain--it could always go wrong.
Come in when it's raining; go on out when it's gone.

Re: Gavin Newsom on MSNBC

41
sikacz wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 9:18 am I’ve already mentioned the alternatives and options and in this thread too. Got to learn to read and understand context. I don’t believe in the two party systems, that should be clear and we have multiple choices to choose from every election. Some people just don’t seem to grasp that change doesn’t happen if you limit yourself to the alternatives the two parties want to present. The reason some people here don’t want to embrace a new path or change is simple, you like the two party dominated stranglehold and the policies they push and represent. I don’t.
Well then, stand by to be frustrated until you no longer can either fill out your mail-in ballot or shuffle into the voting booth. 2 party system is what we have and unlike 'other' elections, this one, in 2024, is for the very soul of US democracy. I know that has been a sound bite in the past but true maga-fascists are poised to do real damage because of trump-ism. deSatan is a shorter, little less fat trump, with some smarts. Look at Florida...book banning, homophobic, racist, dishonest....free and fair election denier...deSatan...How he and a GOPathetic congress will damage democracy can't be over estimated.

What front sight said..this maga-crap is DANGEROUS...Got a tape of the J6 insurrection? Look at it again.
I’m worried about the Republic as long as the MAGA mindset prevails, I will vote against them. So that means, despite the fact I don’t much care for the Democratic part either, I WILL be voting for Democrats because that’s the best defense against these assholes.
Agree with the below as well.The 2024 election is a choice between some democratic reality or the death of democracy as well know it.
Vote how you will or don't vote at all but mark my words this may be the last time you have the option to vote in a free election because if the repugs win democracy is all over. Done.
And It shall be on your shoulders that our republic has ended and fascism rules our country forever.
May a God bless our souls.

Re: Gavin Newsom on MSNBC

42
sikacz wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 12:38 pm It’s not the only right I worry about, but if someone wants to disarm people in general, I think why.
E1DAB380-B119-4F0B-94ED-1B16F9A3C85E.jpeg
Shamelessly stolen..
Ok, I'll play..how are you or anybody you know going to be 'disarmed'? Under what political landscape will this happen? Who will do it, who will pay for it?

There are more firearms that are more accessible today than any time in the recent past. Certainly since the AWB ended. Even with a DEM majority in all of the Fed government, another AWB isn't in the cards, regardless of ;hot mike' sound bites.

Gunbroker.com..search 'AR-15'..over 10,000 ads. Saame for 'Glock', Ruger, Sig Sauer...etc...

Yup, 'glass more than half full' for me in a VERY blue state. I want for nothing, have never had any problem finding and buying what I or my sons want. 30 guns between the 3 of us.

Re: Gavin Newsom on MSNBC

43
F4FEver wrote: Sat Oct 01, 2022 8:29 am
sikacz wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 12:38 pm It’s not the only right I worry about, but if someone wants to disarm people in general, I think why.
E1DAB380-B119-4F0B-94ED-1B16F9A3C85E.jpeg
Shamelessly stolen..
Ok, I'll play..how are you or anybody you know going to be 'disarmed'? Under what political landscape will this happen? Who will do it, who will pay for it?

There are more firearms that are more accessible today than any time in the recent past. Certainly since the AWB ended. Even with a DEM majority in all of the Fed government, another AWB isn't in the cards, regardless of ;hot mike' sound bites.

Gunbroker.com..search 'AR-15'..over 10,000 ads. Saame for 'Glock', Ruger, Sig Sauer...etc...

Yup, 'glass more than half full' for me in a VERY blue state. I want for nothing, have never had any problem finding and buying what I or my sons want. 30 guns between the 3 of us.
Even gun laws in blue states are different. Sure we can buy some guns in CA, not as many as in CO. We're restricted to guns CA allows on the state Roster, because CA says they are "safe" to own. Suppose CA, CO, CT...said car/truck buyers could only purchase vehicles on their "state roster" that they determined to be "safe and fuel efficient". Cars/trucks are lethal weapons just like guns, will residents accept it if their state says it. I think there will be a lot of push back.
Last edited by highdesert on Sat Oct 01, 2022 1:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Gavin Newsom on MSNBC

47
An interesting question always arises when we decide to vote third party. Is our vote wasted, or does it encourage development of said Party? Or would it be best to register Independent and make them chase our asses? So, questionS.

CDFingers
Image
Image
Nothing's for certain--it could always go wrong.
Come in when it's raining; go on out when it's gone.

Re: Gavin Newsom on MSNBC

48
I debated that years ago because in CA no-party (independent) voters could only vote for non-partisan offices during the primary. Now with the "jungle primary" everyone is on the ballot. I did my candidate research for the primary in June so I know who I'll vote for, I'm just waiting for my ballot from the county which should arrive next week.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Gavin Newsom on MSNBC

49
highdesert wrote: Sat Oct 01, 2022 1:42 pm I debated that years ago because in CA no-party (independent) voters could only vote for non-partisan offices during the primary. Now with the "jungle primary" everyone is on the ballot. I did my candidate research for the primary in June so I know who I'll vote for, I'm just waiting for my ballot from the county which should arrive next week.
Yeah, which is why periodically I change from Green to Socialist to what ever. Independent cuts your choices in primaries. Maybe I'll start a new party, the CDFingers Grousers.

I sure would like to see a multi party Congress, five or six strong parties. That would rock.

CDFingers
Image
Image
Nothing's for certain--it could always go wrong.
Come in when it's raining; go on out when it's gone.

Re: Gavin Newsom on MSNBC

50
CDFingers wrote: Sat Oct 01, 2022 2:20 pm
highdesert wrote: Sat Oct 01, 2022 1:42 pm I debated that years ago because in CA no-party (independent) voters could only vote for non-partisan offices during the primary. Now with the "jungle primary" everyone is on the ballot. I did my candidate research for the primary in June so I know who I'll vote for, I'm just waiting for my ballot from the county which should arrive next week.
Yeah, which is why periodically I change from Green to Socialist to what ever. Independent cuts your choices in primaries. Maybe I'll start a new party, the CDFingers Grousers.

I sure would like to see a multi party Congress, five or six strong parties. That would rock.

CDFingers
Agree. To me it’s clear the same old isn’t cutting it. I would love to see more voices in Congress. I feel like Charlie Brown trying to kick that football, just one more time. LoL. Lucy, (the parties) will always pull the ball at the last second.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Semrush [Bot] and 1 guest

cron