This is my repost of my previous post here. My question WASN’T actually clear enough, so I had to add “United States presidential” to the title. That said, I’ll start by saying I’d vote for Governor of Kentucky Andy Beshear.
Any politician that has put their own safety on the line. I don’t care if they ratiod Trump on truth social or even took him to court. People with far less privilege are showing up on the front lines to demand accountability, we should expect nothing less from our leaders.
To quote Jeopardy host Ken Jennings,
The “prosecute the former regime at every level” candidate has my vote in 2028.
Since we’re stuck with the two parties at the moment it’ll need to be a Democrat.
Mark Kelly has mentioned interest and seems to be willing to fight back, so I’m leaning towards him at the moment.
But it’s early so I’m open to candidates who meet the first requirement.
A 3rd party candidate that can’t possibly win because they’re from a non-viable party that isn’t actually trying to be viable and who has zero representatives in Congress.
Or maybe I just wouldn’t vote. It’s all so corrupt anyway.
PSYCHE!!!
I’m not a fucking blithering idiot. I’d vote for the candidate most likely to defeat Republicans/Fascists. So the Dem candidate. Whatever Dem candidate.
Because I’m not a fucking idiot.
Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho
Never republican. Prior to that, whichever Democrat says they will reign hell fire.
Disbanding ICE, disbanding TSA, slashing CBP, cutting military 75+%, expanding the supreme court by 10+ seats, expanding DOJ for all the criminal prosecurions, forcing better vote methodologies, forcing a constitutional convention (new branches of government, independent DOJ, independent science research, independent health), encouraging new states (DC, Guam, Puerto Rico) to join the union to fix Senate proportions, remove electoral college, add in mechanisms for national no-confidence votes, healthcare as a right, etc. There’s a lot more heh.
I’d do more than that
Disband DHS. This agency was never required and was created merely as a knee-jerk to the information sharing problems that contributed to how 9/11 turned out.
Ironically, the majority of those problems were actually between the FBI and CIA and DHS has no authority over either — that role was handled to the also-newly-created Director of National Intelligence (DNI)
Sooooo we never needed the orwellian DHS in the first place
Abolish ICE, HSI and CBP*. The the other constituent agencies carry on as they did before 9/11 and leave the LE/intelligence coordination to the DNI
*Some folks would love to see ATF go, others want the end of TSA
Getting rid of the TSA would be such a helpful step forward better air travel.
Most countries’ airport security is to some extent modelled after the TSA, and was done in lockstep with the US increasing “travel safety” via invasive processes. Obviously it is toned back A LOT, but if the US were to get rid of the TSA and provide more lax regulations on air travel, most international countries would follow.
How so?
I fly enough to hit “gold” status on major airlines, and have seen the transition from the shit-show that was TSA initially into a universally smooth and fast process.
I think a lot of people don’t truly know the chaos that was pre-TSA screening. Do you recall being stuck in an aircraft at the gate, because the airline had to unload luggage for a passenger that hadn’t boarded?
For a long time after 9/11 the only airport operating smoothly was DCA (Congress uses DCA)
But for the last dozen or more years, things have only gotten smoother, everywhere.
I passed through JFK screening in less than 22 minutes a few weeks ago.
Must be nice to have tsa pre-screened status.
To be fair, it is. I also kept a Clear membership for a few years, but it wasn’t worth it.
But, non-pre lines are just as short as pre-check these days, and my (non-science) impression is that the only reason it’s slower is that more of the folks in it are unfamiliar with the process.
But messaging/signage for what’s required is quite good in most places, and it’s still much less confusing than 80s and 90s airports.
How about using that constitutional convention to turn the US into a socialist republic (or a “Cooperative Republic”)?
You would actually trust a Democrat that came forward like that? We can even get them to commit not being assholes.
Not Republican is the only qualifier if you’re a sane person.
Not Republican isn’t enough though.
We can’t have a repeat of a bunch of bumbling dipshits voting for non-viable 3rd party candidates that literally cannot win or not voting at all.
I will be voting for whatever Dem candidate is on the ticket. Because I’m tired of feds infringing on our rights and executing American citizens in the streets and the most likely way to make that stop is by voting for whatever Democrat is on the ticket.
Something like 0.5% voted third party. IMO it’s a non issue. Never Republican is a clearer mandate. But yes, I will be campaigning hard for the best Democrat and will be voting Democrat.
That tactic hasn’t worked very well for the DNC, their only policy for the last 10 years is we are not Trump, despite every other indicator showing that they are.
great, go vote for the greater of two evils and tell me how well that goes for you. Oh wait, we’ve seen what happens then
50 years of liberal ‘lesser evil’ has led to where we are right now. A small acceptable evil allows a slightly larger one the next time.
Your incrementalism gave us incremental fascism.
So you’re blaming Dems being weak for Republicans being fascist?
Next are you going to blame the rape victim for not fighting back hard enough?
Dems haven’t done enough. That doesn’t mean they made this all happen. Republicans made this happen. Period.
Fascism doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Historically every time it’s raised its head it’s been with the complicity of liberals.
50 years of liberal ‘lesser evil’ has led to where we are right now.
-
they didn’t have 50 years of “lesser evil”. It’s been a mix, also, the 3 government branches have been in different hands throughout
-
the Dems implemented progressive policies throughout
-
the dems are not a “lesser evil” they are an “imperfect ok”
They’ve actually been sprouting lesser evil bullshit for over a century. There is no shade of fascism that’s imperfect ok
-
their only policy for the last 10 years is we are not Trump, despite every other indicator showing that they are.
Criticize the Dems. I’m not saying they don’t deserve it.
But that statement is irresponsible. Dangerous even.
The last time Dems were in power American citizens weren’t being executed in the streets in broad daylight by an immigration agency 1300 miles from the southern border. The last Dem president wasn’t sending a Gestapo into American cities to terrorize American citizens to instigate pushback so he could cancel elections. The last Dem president didn’t corruptly use the National Guard to take over Washington DC. The last Dem president didn’t instruct his DOJ to openly defy the law.
I can’t believe this continues to need to be repeated but THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.
Democrats were helping build the infrastructure and creating the tools necessary for trump to take these actions. While you were at brunch Biden increased ice funding to the highest level they’ve ever received, he boosted detention center construction, he helped local police build cop cities. Bill Clinton’s expedited removal allowed immigrants be denied due process, a measure Obama used on 75% of those he deported. Obama/Biden built the cages trump kept kids in. ICE is collecting a database of faces of protesters to be cataloged and maintained by Palentir, who Democrats have a very cozy relationship with.
In just a few days Schumer will help muster the votes needed to boost ICE funding again.
No matter how many times you want to shout it, they are the same.
The tactic hasn’t worked for the party, but it has worked for me.
Your hot take is stupid. They are not Trump, and if you can’t see that NOW then reevaluate your entire life.
Pedro
Napoleon Dynamite reference?
Democratic Primary: Which ever one in the top-two that’s more progressive
General: Democratic nominee
I mean that kinda is the only strategy
You could register Republican, then vote in the Republican primary for the less evil candidate.
Then in the general election vote for the Democratic nominee.
Although I don’t think many people are doing that, so maybe there’s a flaw in that strategy
I simply don’t believe the GOP is possible to save at this point. So I’d never do that.
This wouldn’t be about saving the GOP. They aren’t going to collapse any time soon, and I don’t think they are morally saveable either.
It’s just about getting two chances at avoiding the greatest possible evil.
Conservatives are bad. But MAGA-progressives are downright evil.
Nah bro
Even if a “moderate” candidate wins the republican primary, its still gonna be 10x worse than the average corporate dem
Yes. But how is that relevant?
Either the Democrats win the general election, then it’s irrelevant who the Republican candidate is, or they lose. Then the moderate Republican would be much better than the maga extremist.
I guess there could be some concerns about a moderate Republican swaying more independent voters?
It was also the only strategy last election, but millions of idiots still voted for non-starter 3rd party candidates or didn’t vote.
Voting third party in non-swing states is one of the few ways for people to register their disgust with fake-ass corporate shill Dems.
Voting third party in a swing state is idiotic.
Actually I have a better voting strategy:
But the moral prohibition on siding with any administration that endorses genocide will force a different flavor of the exact same logic that centrist liberalism has depended on for so long: hold your nose and align with the least worst thing. Only the least worst thing will no longer be the mild, ethics-agnostic emptiness of modern Western liberalism, nor will it be the multitude of barbaric authoritarians and their secret prisons. It will be communal solidarity, or else nothing, a walking away from all of this. Countless otherwise pragmatic people who would in any other circumstance choose liberalism by default will instead decide none of this is worth the damage to one’s soul. They will instead support no one, vote for no one, wash their hands of any ordering of the world that results in choices no better than this. And the obvious centrist refrain—But do you want the deranged right wing to win?—should, after even a moment of self-reflection, yield to a far more important question: How empty does your message have to be for a deranged right wing to even have a chance of winning? Of all the epitaphs that may one day be written on the gravestone of Western liberalism, the most damning is this: Faced off against a nihilistic, endlessly cruel manifestation of conservatism, and somehow managed to
make it close.— Omar El-Akkad, One Day Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This, correction mine.
I also like to fail at my goals. High five!
Well clearly we have different goals and I’m happy to fail all of yours 😃
So what is your plan to actually achieve goals? Protest? A coup d’etat? Civil war?
Do you think archiving those goals in a MAGA-autocracy will be easier than in a less evil system?
How many lives is that sort of change worth?
I’ll vote for the candidate that I think is going to do the most to advance the policy goals I’d like. Right now that happens to be the opposite of everything the GoP is doing, and half of what the Dems are doing.
I would vote for whichever candidate that has firm, unflinching, support for Trans, NB and GNC people. Someone who will rescind every EO (with special focus on anti-LGBT orders), return our dignity and sense of belonging, and vow to veto any and all anti-LGBTQ+ pieces of legislation.
This is of course in addition to abolishing ICE.
Fat chance of either, unfortunately.
You only have two options. And this is first past the post voting, so you’re not really voting for anybody. You’re voting against the worst candidate.
So given that, which party would you vote against?
You’re right, there are effectively 2 options. Guess which option a trans person would vote for?
I wouldn’t be able to.
But if I could, I would vote for the Democrat nominee. The voting system of the USA is a bit screwed, and voting for anyone but the better of the two most popular candidates is a wasted vote.
What do you think of parliamentary systems?
They are flawed as well. You will never agree with any party on all issues, so you have to already compromise during voting. Even more so if there is an electoral threshold.
If that legislative would then try to find different majorities for every different issue, the population would still be represented relatively well. But that’s not what actually happens.
Instead, two or three parties that represent just barely more than half the population get together and form a government. An executive government. That alone goes against the separation of powers.
And after that, most legislative decisions are made unilaterally by that government coalition.
That whole coalition circus doesn’t work without an electoral threshold, which again forces voters to compromise more.
Instead, I’d like to vote for the government directly, through ranked voting. With a separate ranking for each minister. That way I could eg. give my highest vote to the green candidate for the ministry of transportation, and Dr. med XYZ of the conservative party for the ministry of health.
Then, separate from the executive branch, I could imagine a parliament without an electoral threshold for the legislative. That would keep compromise during voting to a minimum. 0.5% of votes would already grant a seat. That way, voters can choose representatives they agree with on multiple issues.
Although my preferred solution would be a more direct system of petitions and citizen’s assembly. If an open petition gets enough votes, or the government petitions something, then a randomly selected citizen’s assembly would be called to meet, research, debate and decide on that issue. Similar to jury duty in the US.
Random selection sounds counter to what we generally consider democratic today. But it would be much less susceptible to corruption. And random selection means we get a representative sample of opinions.
Direct voting on issues is also relatively safe from corruption. However, especially with less mainstream topics, it has a tendency to let extremists win. Because they are better at mobilizing their voters.
For really important issues direct voting is still a pretty decent idea. For example for changes to the constitution. Especially if it takes 50% of eligible voters to change the constitution. Not just 50% of cast votes.
What do you call that electoral model?
The government would be voted through instant runoff voting.
The legislative would combine several forms of direct democracy. Namely:
Is it technocratic, and are you talking about extremely direct democracy?
Yes. I’m talking about an extremely directly democratic legislative system.
Democracy is supposed to put decisions in the hands of the people. But in our current system, that doesn’t seem to be the case. Germany is the 13th most democratic country. And still lobbyists have such a heavy influence that they might as well be considered our legislative.
Some people might be annoyed to be called for citizens’s assembly duty. But democratic participation is vital if we want a fair system.
Do you think the US should’ve been a socialist country years ago?
The executive system would be slightly more technocratic than our current system. Expertise would definitely give candidates an edge.
For many posts the votes would mostly be cast according to morals. Like how I chose the green candidate, regardless of qualifications, for the ministry of transportation. I want trams and bike lanes. Not a transportation engineer that knows how to build even bigger parking lots.
But during a pandemic, I don’t want Spahn or Kennedy as health minister. I want someone like Lauterbach or Fauci. So maybe some technocracy is a good thing.
Mamdani.
Unfortunately the constitution prohibits him from ever becoming president, since he was born outside the US.
The constitution didn’t prevent a felon and rapist from becoming a president. I say the constitution is dead and needs to be replaced by one in where socialism is prevalent.
Yeah, count me in on that. The current constitution disallows non natural-born US citizens for life while not disallowing candidates with a criminal record in any way (except 14th amendment section 3 but thats very narrow). Make it make sense. But this will be a huge obstacle in practice nonetheless.
They did that so you don’t have political opponents using the courts to make up some random charges against their opponents. It makes perfect sense. The people failed and voted for the grand ol pedophile…the constitution didn’t make them.
Not if a certain orange is held at gunpoint.
*in Minecraft, of course
Kang
JB Pritzker I just think he would be a solid candidate
Who’s in charge of the Communist party these days?
What?
Greta Thunberg
