I understand how it’s procedurally possible to do. But why would everyone accept having the delegates at the convention just vote for some random person that the people didn’t get to vote on themselves? People around here talk about how the 2016 primary was so undemocratic because they had stuff like superdelegates, but at the end of the day the process was actually pretty democratic, unlike choosing someone totally unrelated after the primaries.

To me, Harris is the only one you could just put in place and say this is still the ticket you voted for. Anyone else, I don’t know how you pull it off.

The Republicans really got just what they wanted out of people like you with what they did in Congress with the border. There is a legit crisis down there now. And there was an agreed-to, bipartisan border bill ready to go, and at the last moment Trump said to tank it because it will reflect well on the Democrats. So they tanked it, leaving Biden’s executive branch with very limited options to do anything. So he is doing one of the crappy few things he can do, and people like you just pin it to Biden, which is just what Trump and the GOP hoped for.

I have wondered how it would be possible to change the ticket into anyone else but Harris at this late stage. There is no time to do a new set of primaries. Harris is at least the VP on the ticket and the person whose job it would be to step in for Biden anyway.

How could he just designate some random person and everyone who voted Biden just has to go with it?

Poe’s Law

Well if thats true then it’s pretty annoying.

So you’ll misspell a write-in vote for an idiotic Russian plant. Sounds like you’re really someone to listen to on this.

The mere suggestion of Jill Stein clearly demonstrates that you do not have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. Holy crap.

Really? I’ve found that the really nice thing about the Apple App Store is that I can always cancel subscriptions in the same place and the subscription still works until the end of the designated period. Has this changed, or have I just been lucky in the apps I’ve subscribed to?

One problem with this analogy is that if you’re in a burning house, you literally don’t have time to have a conversation while you’re in it. But in fact we could spend the entire weekend discussing viable candidates and it wouldn’t become too late to then decide to support the idea.

Another problem is that you’re presupposing that the course of action is obvious, as it is in a house fire. In a house fire, it doesn’t matter what can be done about the stuff or where you’re going to live if you lose your home, because if you don’t get out of the house ASAP then you will die, based on thousands upon thousands of previous house fires. In the case of this election, nothing like this has ever happened and staying with Biden does not actually mean guaranteed loss. Perhaps continuing the public call for Biden to step down is the thing that hurts us the most. In any case, the only thing that would mean a literal guaranteed loss would be withdrawing Biden and not replacing him with someone.

So, coming up with suitable people who could take the helm and do better (as well as figuring out a viable way to make this happen democratically) is necessary to this process actually succeeding. We actually do have the luxury of time to spend all day discussing it right now. And if good ideas for candidates can actually win over more people to the idea, then it might in some way be helpful to the success of it.

I would say I’m a person who both feels like things have reached a point where Biden should ideally be replaced, but I’m very worried by the fact that I haven’t yet heard someone else who we could theoretically rally behind, and haven’t heard how this could even be accomplished legally and politically at this late stage. I feel the worst thing we can do is to just repeatedly say it’s a fire and not actually figure out steps to fix it.

I don’t want someone to go kill him, but I absolutely wish that he would drop dead without the slightest moral reservation.

My only concern is that however he were to die, everyone on the right would go full conspiracy theory and blame it on the left, and somehow we’d be worse off in ways I can’t imagine right now. The right always seems to find a way to make me regret any turn of events that I thought was good.

I think that electing someone as deranged as Trump — who basically would try anything and everything that a sane person wouldn’t risk out of self-preservation, we basically saw a speedrun of finding out all the weaknesses and exploits of our government, combined with proving that impeachment and removal is basically impossible as long as one party is in collusion with the president.

We might have gotten here anyway, but it might have been a decade or two rather than four short years.

And the Supreme Court wouldn’t look like it does and be doing what’s it’s doing, which is also now a speedrun of horror.

I’ll never forgive Americans for 2016.

Because they’re sexy. We’ve been over this.

Ubermeets

He can’t tackle SCOTUS expansion unless we also vote in a solid majority in the Senate, and he can’t tackle Medicare for All unless we vote in a supermajority.

Yes, that’s a good assumption. Another possibility is that regulatory language incentivizes car makers to have larger vehicles.

It doesn’t really matter whether there’s a market or not, because the main reasons to bemoan these monstrous trucks are that they are bad for the environment, a nuisance on roads and parking lots, and more dangerous for other cars and pedestrians.

I think if the regulatory language is updated to disincentivize the monster trucks, then we’d see a market for the more 90s style trucks.

For some people, the lack of second row would cause them to not get a truck with a full size bed at all, which I don’t see as a problem.

What? I just said it may or may not exist. And half the point of the image we are commenting on is that car makers are making excessively large trucks so it’s very possible that such a car isn’t currently being made. I’m just asking you to use 1% of your imagination to imagine a truck that has a full size bed that is neither the Kei nor a monument to man’s hubris. Like a 90s-sized truck.

Surely you can imagine a truck that may or may not currently be on the market. This theoretical truck is minimally large enough to be reasonably safe, and also has a bed is as big as the trucks pictured. Like, a truck that does not have four doors and two rows of seating.

I’m not saying at that size! I’m saying that whatever size increase you need to make a reasonably safe pickup would be closer to the small extreme (the Kei) than the large extreme.

I’m not saying the modern Kei must be safe. I’m saying if you do things to make it safer while prioritizing small size, you’ll end up with something a lot closer to the size of the Kei than the other car.

No, I think OP is making a valid point. If you start with a Kei and just add in modern safety features and nothing else, the size of the vehicle will be a lot closer to the Kei than the other monstrosity.