Kamala needs Walz to help in interview!!! INCOMPETENT

[gwb-trading]

Let's take a look at all the misogyny coming from the right-wing MAGA nutcases. The "Kamala needs a man around" attacks are not only laughable but nonsensical.

Surely this will help with getting the votes of women in November.

Charlie Kirk: “Kamala Harris screams as somebody who has unaddressed, lingering father issues”
Kirk: “She always needs to have a man around”
https://www.mediamatters.org/charli...somebody-who-has-unaddressed-lingering-father

 

[Tuxan]

Would you rather a direct democracy w/ simple 51% majority rule instead? That's mob rule in my book. It's not half-baked... it's a simplification for illustrative purposes.

Removing or curtailing the filibuster still leaves numerous other protections for minority party rights.

Things exist in larger systems, presidential sign off, courts, super majoriy requirements for constitional change etc.

 

[spy]

Removing or curtailing the filibuster still leaves numerous other protections for minority party rights.

Things exist in larger systems, presidential sign off, courts, super majoriy requirements for constitional change etc.

Slippery slope Tux, slippery slope... IMHO tie goes to the GOP on this one.

Esp. when all Kamala's got so far is "my values haven't changed", which would be fine if she ever exhibited any values other than those of a socialist. Trump might be an a-hole, but he's a more consistent a-hole. And, in a world where all politicians are a-holes, gotta go w/ consistency.

 

[Tuxan]

Slippery slope Tux, slippery slope... IMHO tie goes to the GOP on this one.

Esp. when all Kamala's got so far is "my values haven't changed", which would be fine if she ever exhibited any values other than those of a socialist. Trump might be an a-hole, but he's a more consistent a-hole. And, in a world where all politicians are a-holes, gotta go w/ consistency.

Every other constitutional democracy does without, the stagnation and it is a new device that is not in the constitution.

The two party system has some benefits but it has endless problems. The filibuster is similar to soccer's "offside rule" which was introduced to try and balance too high scoring due to dominant numbers but created endless dirge games with 00 and 01 results.

The game is far better in more original forms where hands are also in play and points over the bar exist.

"The offside rule in football (soccer) is designed to prevent teams from attacking with an excessive number of players, potentially overwhelming the defense. It states:

A player is offside if any part of their body (except their arms and hands) is beyond the last opponent's line of defense when the ball is played to them."

I believe the glass is just entirely too small.

 

[Tuxan]

@spy

I would consider removing the filibuster and instead seriously limiting the power of party whips to interfere with individual members making their own choice on issues.

This would require massive campaign finance reform.

 

[spy]

Every other constitutional democracy does without, the stagnation and it is a new device that is not in the constitution.

The two party system has some benefits but it has endless problems. The filibuster is similar to soccer's "offside rule" which was introduced to try and balance too high scoring due to dominant numbers but created endless dirge games with 00 and 01 results.

The game is far better in more original forms where hands are also in play and points over the bar exist.

"The offside rule in football (soccer) is designed to prevent teams from attacking with an excessive number of players, potentially overwhelming the defense. It states:

A player is offside if any part of their body (except their arms and hands) is beyond the last opponent's line of defense when the ball is played to them."

I believe the glass is just entirely too small.

I'm not a social choice theorist but your ideas are interesting. Ranked-choice voting is gaining some momentum. Until there's more clarity though, stagnation could be for the best.

 

[wildchild]

I find the democrats in general lack emotion. They have no facts either, They are simply ruled by fear. Go against the party and they will kill you. We all remember how Obama bragged that he had a goon squad and if people didnt listen to him it didnt matter because he was really good at killing people.

 

[Tuxan]

I find the democrats in general lack emotion. They have no facts either, They are simply ruled by fear. Go against the party and they will kill you. We all remember how Obama bragged that he had a goon squad and if people didnt listen to him it didnt matter because he was really good at killing people.

And don't forget Ted Cruz's dad killed Kennedy.

 

[newwurldmn]

Slippery slope Tux, slippery slope... IMHO tie goes to the GOP on this one.

Esp. when all Kamala's got so far is "my values haven't changed", which would be fine if she ever exhibited any values other than those of a socialist. Trump might be an a-hole, but he's a more consistent a-hole. And, in a world where all politicians are a-holes, gotta go w/ consistency.

Trump is not consistent at all. He is just really good at making you think he didn't say what he said yesterday.

 

[spy]

Trump is not consistent at all. He is just really good at making you think he didn't say what he said yesterday.

Even if this were wholly true, which it isn't because it's a relative matter subject to perception, it does not mean that Kamala is consistent, does it? IMHO, she's been much more inconsistent than Trump, at least in the recent past.

The bigger problem that I see isn't even w/ her specifically... it's that the Dems are the incumbent party and things haven't been all milk and honey the last 4 years. This requires she change her positions somewhat wildly.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... if Biden's presidency was truly successful he'd have simply coasted to another term. Instead there have been nothing but excuses and adjustments (even at the 11th hour). The Democrats still have that problem to contend with.