Thread Like Summary
dawglover05, FATE, GMdawg, PitDAWG
Total Likes: 6
Original Post (Thread Starter)
by hitt
hitt
JMHO, please read about Joe Kent on WIKI- JMHO- he is EXACTLY the type of candidate who should NEVER be elected to public office- "Kent made false claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump a focus of his 2022 campaign. He labeled the perpetrators of the 2021 Capitol insurrection as "political prisoners" and spoke at a rally in defense of them organized by his top adviser. He supports impeaching Joe Biden and - in the wake of the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago - Merrick Garland." He's close to the "conspiracy groups"- "Graham Jorgensen, a member of the neo-fascist organization Proud Boys, was employed as a consultant for Kent's 2022 campaign. Joey Gibson, founder of the far-right group Patriot Prayer, has also been linked to Kent; Gibson heavily promoted Kent's campaign on social media and spoke at a fundraiser for Kent, in which Kent praised Gibson for "defend[ing] this community when our community was under assault from antifa."

So, vote for the guy who believes his own facts and supports bigotry over equal rights. Republicans- you can't win with these type of candidates- the left, Democrats AND the independents will beat you EVERY time- almost. Some how Greene is an exception- pray for her defeat.
Liked Replies
by Bull_Dawg
Bull_Dawg
Originally Posted by OldColdDawg
If Biden and Trump are the only choices, there is only one option. Trump can never rise to power again.

This type of thinking is why this country has gone to... the mess that it has.

The options have been/are so bad that people picked Trump to shake things up. Yet, the "only option" is one of the same bad choices that led there.

It's like the definition of insanity.

We can't have Trump, but let's keep doing the things that led to Trump.

We need to come up with a better system that leads to better choices being available. The choice between eyewateringly foul excrement and dry, crusty excrement isn't really a choice worth making. Regardless of one not smelling as bad, you're still voting for a porta potty environment. How do we get away from toxic sludge at the top and bring back some sanity?
2 members like this
by hitt
hitt
I'm praying you're wrong about it constantly growing- conservative Christians seem to flock to the guy and I can't understand why.
1 member likes this
by oobernoober
oobernoober
Democrats and Republican parties are LONG overdue for a boot in the butt. Losing the Executive branch to a 3rd party just might do it.
1 member likes this
by Bull_Dawg
Bull_Dawg
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
Originally Posted by Bull_Dawg
That's why I'm saying there should be a way to get the choices thrown out, and make them come up with better ones.
,
If you only give bad choices to voters and their only option is to pick one, the results aren't really the voters fault. It's the fault of those giving the choices. We need to give voters the ability to get rid of bad choices.

While I certainly do not disagree with you, as I said, it's the voters who select these people. Republicans voters have their choice of who they elect as their nominee for president. They have current and former members of house, the senate and vice presidents to choose from. But to republican voters trump is the best person for the job. And the democrats aren't any better. Out of their rank and file they selected an 80 year old Biden to run.

So who other than their own party members do you think has the right to select who represents their party in an election? While I think your idea is sound based on principal, creating a process where you force a party to select someone not of their own choosing is a very slippery slope and one the people in power would never allow through the process. The best thing people can do thus far is vote third party in protest. And as we've seen that hasn't been a very productive path to walk down in order to solve the problem.

It shouldn't just be people voting for their own party. Democrats (or any segment of the entire voter base of large enough size) should have a way to vote out a Republican candidate. And the opposite. Eventually, once all the lousy candidates got voted as unacceptable, they'd have to give a sane/"compromise" candidate. Would it extend the voting process? Yes. You'd have to go multiple rounds. For me, the future of the country would be worth it.

Frankly, I'm of the opinion we should do away with both parties. I think there is an argument to be made that they violate antitrust laws. The two parties effectively have a monopoly and make it impossible for independents to have a realistic shot. Plus, the evidence of the past several decades should amply illustrate the dangers of groupthink in politics.
1 member likes this
by Bull_Dawg
Bull_Dawg
Originally Posted by hitt
OCD, I'm just an old guy who remembers .15 cent burgers at MD and .25 chocolate milkshakes--your comment about wealth and destruction of middle class---ugh- just my observations- HS football games really crowded, college games overflowing, and pro stadiums packed. Stock market down a little recently, but came back STRONG after the pandemic- employers CAN'T find enough workers---lots of entitled sitting on their butts looking for government handouts. Plus we got lots of really smart folks doing incredible stuff- landing missile parts and using them over and over. Things are bad, but WOW- lots of folks living life big.

Sports/Entertainment are likely crowded because people are seeking more and more distractions from the rest of their (miserable) lives.

The stock market doesn't really reflect the economic reality of the average person. It shows the success of corporations, all too frequently at the expense of their employees and consumers. For example, Berkshire Hathaway stock is $473,000 a share. That looks great on a spreadsheet and can "show economic growth." But, most people can't afford that, nor do they have much hope of ever being able to do so.

If employers paid fair wages and didn't treat their employees on the spectrum of carelessly to horribly, maybe employers would find more workers. Lots of "entitled" corporations are getting government handouts, people wanting the wealth to be spread may have a point. Who wants to work for someone making 7 figures to treat them like cattle? As wages have stagnated, the cost of everything else is going up.

Can you define "lots" more precisely? Maybe present it as a percentage of the population. Is 1% lots?

Yes, some folks are living life big. Most people are not.
1 member likes this
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5