2024

[ousdahl]

He’s Green Party now, right?

Generally they’ll at least have somebody on the ballot…maybe.

But yea, with the way money dominates elections, maybe not.

Either way, pretty wild that “vote blue no matter who!” is the appeal against fascism.

[KUTradition]

do you really think that’s always been the case?

i have zero issues advocating for that position now, at this very moment, given the alternative to not voting blue

i haven’t always felt that way

[jfish26]

The fact an “unserious chaos agent,” to use your term, could have any advantage at all, might be quite the commentary on just how unappealing the “serious candidate” (and establishment politics at-large) has become.

Heaven forbid, some third party candidate offers some platform that might actually appeal to some voters.

But, if Biden looses, rather than even consider taking any look in the mirror, dems will be poised to just scapegoat West instead.

You're missing the point.

It's a moral hazard issue.

Biden, who is a tick or five north of 50% to be the winner of the 2024 election (and, accordingly, the President for another four years), needs to say things that won't cause him problems in the big chair.

West, who is as likely as Randy is to win the 2024 election, can say whatever the fuck he wants.

You know who's going to come off better in a debate?

[jfish26]

He’s Green Party now, right?

Generally they’ll at least have somebody on the ballot…maybe.

But yea, with the way money dominates elections, maybe not.

Either way, pretty wild that “vote blue no matter who!” is the appeal against fascism.

Good grief we're playing buzzword bingo here. What is the relationship between the Dems' part in a fairly rigid two-party system, and fascism?

[ousdahl]

I suppose that’s where we loose each other a bit.

To me, the fairly rigid two-party system IS fascism, or a helluva lot closer to it than anyone cares to admit.

At the very least, it’s not particularly well-equipped to combat fascism.

Yea dems play the role of some sorta foil to the more fascist pubs, at least in terms of rhetoric.

In terms of policy, dems and pubs tend to vote in lockstep together far more than folks would care to admit, or even realize.

[ousdahl]

The fact an “unserious chaos agent,” to use your term, could have any advantage at all, might be quite the commentary on just how unappealing the “serious candidate” (and establishment politics at-large) has become.

Heaven forbid, some third party candidate offers some platform that might actually appeal to some voters.

But, if Biden looses, rather than even consider taking any look in the mirror, dems will be poised to just scapegoat West instead.

You're missing the point.

It's a moral hazard issue.

Biden, who is a tick or five north of 50% to be the winner of the 2024 election (and, accordingly, the President for another four years), needs to say things that won't cause him problems in the big chair.

West, who is as likely as Randy is to win the 2024 election, can say whatever the fuck he wants.

You know who's going to come off better in a debate?

Just outta curiosity, what COULD Biden say that might cause him problems?

And would it be more likely to loose him some on-the-fence undecideds, or otherwise loyal supporters?

(ETA and again, a dood who can go out on a debate stage and potentially come off better by just saying whatever the fuck he wants, might be quite the indictment of the establishment’s pitch otherwise)

[ousdahl]

do you really think that’s always been the case?

i have zero issues advocating for that position now, at this very moment, given the alternative to not voting blue

i haven’t always felt that way

Yea, I suppose I do think that’s always been the case - at least since our politics have been dominated by the two-party system…which is to say, within all our lifetimes except for maybe geezer’s.

[KUTradition]

do you really think that’s always been the case?

i have zero issues advocating for that position now, at this very moment, given the alternative to not voting blue

i haven’t always felt that way

Yea, I suppose I do think that’s always been the case - at least since our politics have been dominated by the two-party system…which is to say, within all our lifetimes except for maybe geezer’s.

i would’ve gladly voted for someone like Kasich over hillary, but still refer to myself as a dem

[jfish26]

The fact an “unserious chaos agent,” to use your term, could have any advantage at all, might be quite the commentary on just how unappealing the “serious candidate” (and establishment politics at-large) has become.

Heaven forbid, some third party candidate offers some platform that might actually appeal to some voters.

But, if Biden looses, rather than even consider taking any look in the mirror, dems will be poised to just scapegoat West instead.

You're missing the point.

It's a moral hazard issue.

Biden, who is a tick or five north of 50% to be the winner of the 2024 election (and, accordingly, the President for another four years), needs to say things that won't cause him problems in the big chair.

West, who is as likely as Randy is to win the 2024 election, can say whatever the fuck he wants.

You know who's going to come off better in a debate?

Just outta curiosity, what COULD Biden say that might cause him problems?

And would it be more likely to loose him some on-the-fence undecideds, or otherwise loyal supporters?

(ETA and again, a dood who can go out on a debate stage and potentially come off better by just saying whatever the fuck he wants, might be quite the indictment of the establishment’s pitch otherwise)

You're just way off on a tangent here.

All I was trying to point out is that "debate me, bro!" culture is about talking point sparring, and has very little to do with substance. And that's BECAUSE it's easier to win a debate - easier to win talking point sparring - if you are untethered to having to actually, you know, put your words into action.

[KUTradition]

it’s not all that different from promises made on the campaign trail…

…unless you win and don’t follow through

[twocoach]

The fact an “unserious chaos agent,” to use your term, could have any advantage at all, might be quite the commentary on just how unappealing the “serious candidate” (and establishment politics at-large) has become.

Heaven forbid, some third party candidate offers some platform that might actually appeal to some voters.

But, if Biden looses, rather than even consider taking any look in the mirror, dems will be poised to just scapegoat West instead.

Nah, there's plenty of people who have the Steve Bannon "I just want to watch the world burn" attitude where they think the system is broken and that the only way to fix it is with a stick of dynamite.

[twocoach]

You're missing the point.

It's a moral hazard issue.

Biden, who is a tick or five north of 50% to be the winner of the 2024 election (and, accordingly, the President for another four years), needs to say things that won't cause him problems in the big chair.

West, who is as likely as Randy is to win the 2024 election, can say whatever the fuck he wants.

You know who's going to come off better in a debate?

Just outta curiosity, what COULD Biden say that might cause him problems?

And would it be more likely to loose him some on-the-fence undecideds, or otherwise loyal supporters?

(ETA and again, a dood who can go out on a debate stage and potentially come off better by just saying whatever the fuck he wants, might be quite the indictment of the establishment’s pitch otherwise)

You're just way off on a tangent here.

All I was trying to point out is that "debate me, bro!" culture is about talking point sparring, and has very little to do with substance. And that's BECAUSE it's easier to win a debate - easier to win talking point sparring - if you are untethered to having to actually, you know, put your words into action.

Agreed. The newbies are free from any experience that would serve as a blinking yellow warning light. They can propose all sorts of stupid shit because they don't know enough to recognize how stupid and unrealistic it is while a more experienced candidate seems to be more hesitant to put really wild ideas out there because they are more aware of just how stupid and unrealistic they are.

[jfish26]

it’s not all that different from promises made on the campaign trail…

…unless you win and don’t follow through

All I'm saying is that the players are playing a fundamentally different (but similar-seeming) game; there's a reason you don't see long-drive champions even trying to compete at golf.

[KUTradition]

it’s not all that different from promises made on the campaign trail…

…unless you win and don’t follow through

All I'm saying is that the players are playing a fundamentally different (but similar-seeming) game; there's a reason you don't see long-drive champions even trying to compete at golf.

i’m picking up what you’re putting down

[twocoach]

I suppose that’s where we loose each other a bit.

To me, the fairly rigid two-party system IS fascism, or a helluva lot closer to it than anyone cares to admit.

At the very least, it’s not particularly well-equipped to combat fascism.

Yea dems play the role of some sorta foil to the more fascist pubs, at least in terms of rhetoric.

In terms of policy, dems and pubs tend to vote in lockstep together far more than folks would care to admit, or even realize.

You probably need to review what the term "fascism" means.

[jfish26]

Just outta curiosity, what COULD Biden say that might cause him problems?

And would it be more likely to loose him some on-the-fence undecideds, or otherwise loyal supporters?

(ETA and again, a dood who can go out on a debate stage and potentially come off better by just saying whatever the fuck he wants, might be quite the indictment of the establishment’s pitch otherwise)

You're just way off on a tangent here.

All I was trying to point out is that "debate me, bro!" culture is about talking point sparring, and has very little to do with substance. And that's BECAUSE it's easier to win a debate - easier to win talking point sparring - if you are untethered to having to actually, you know, put your words into action.

Agreed. The newbies are free from any experience that would serve as a blinking yellow warning light. They can propose all sorts of stupid shit because they don't know enough to recognize how stupid and unrealistic it is while a more experienced candidate seems to be more hesitant to put really wild ideas out there because they are more aware of just how stupid and unrealistic they are.

And, crucially, the debate-me-bro set does not actually have any desire to win election; it'd be the dog catching the truck.

(I remain pretty sure, for example, that Trump himself did not REALLY want to win in 2016.)

[twocoach]

You're just way off on a tangent here.

All I was trying to point out is that "debate me, bro!" culture is about talking point sparring, and has very little to do with substance. And that's BECAUSE it's easier to win a debate - easier to win talking point sparring - if you are untethered to having to actually, you know, put your words into action.

Agreed. The newbies are free from any experience that would serve as a blinking yellow warning light. They can propose all sorts of stupid shit because they don't know enough to recognize how stupid and unrealistic it is while a more experienced candidate seems to be more hesitant to put really wild ideas out there because they are more aware of just how stupid and unrealistic they are.

And, crucially, the debate-me-bro set does not actually have any desire to win election; it'd be the dog catching the truck.

(I remain pretty sure, for example, that Trump himself did not REALLY want to win in 2016.)

Trump always wanted to win. I just don't think he had given even a moment's thought as to what would happen if he won other than some daydreaming about all the power. He hated the actual requirements of the job and was terrible at almost all of them.

[jfish26]

Agreed. The newbies are free from any experience that would serve as a blinking yellow warning light. They can propose all sorts of stupid shit because they don't know enough to recognize how stupid and unrealistic it is while a more experienced candidate seems to be more hesitant to put really wild ideas out there because they are more aware of just how stupid and unrealistic they are.

And, crucially, the debate-me-bro set does not actually have any desire to win election; it'd be the dog catching the truck.

(I remain pretty sure, for example, that Trump himself did not REALLY want to win in 2016.)

Trump always want to win. I just don't think he had given even a moment's thought as to what would happen if he won other than some daydreaming about all the power. He hated the actual requirements of the job and was terrible at almost all of them.

Right, he wanted to win the coin flip. He just didn't actually want the 25 cents.

[Sparko]

Part of Trump's winner's remorse was that he owed Putin and Russia special favors. He was compromised and was forced into some crazy situations. Even for him. For the same reason, he should have dropped out. But narcissism

[Shirley]

it’s not all that different from promises made on the campaign trail…

…unless you win and don’t follow through

All I'm saying is that the players are playing a fundamentally different (but similar-seeming) game; there's a reason you don't see long-drive champions even trying to compete at golf.

We don't?