Quincy

Lame duck just means he can’t get elected again for a 3rd term. (Unless the Republicans try to change that ) Obama was a lame duck going into the 2016 election.

What incentive do they have to change if he wins again? I think it’s the opposite.

If Trump wins, it’s going to enable republicans to go even more hardcore MAGA. I wouldn’t be surprised if Don Jr. runs for office as a result. Since daddy Donny boy will be in a lame duck term and old af, he’s going to be way more unhinged than anyone can fathom. On the other hand, if he loses, I think the right has to change course. Or maybe it will further divide the party.

voting endorsement

Eagerly awaiting your final endorsement, no cap

You been very lukewarm about Harris

Never thought I’d hear you make the most eloquent case against Trump

It’s still tight. The Iowa poll is a shocker, but also not completely surprising. The sad thing is, there are still a lot of tossup states. But if Iowa is close or even Texas… Demographics are slowly shifting. I really doubt she makes Texas close, but she could eek out Iowa. I think in order of most likely outcomes, it’s 1. Slight Harris victory 2. Slight Trump victory 3. Harris landslide Multiple data points suggest Kamala wins in a landslide, but I’m really being cautiously pessimistic. Trump has been an anomaly in elections and polling over the past 8-9 years. It’s hard to gauge. But it is hard to deny that many high level republicans are throwing support behind the democrat. That should be a signal by itself.

Marina-96 Nirvana-22 Kate Bush-109 Fiona Apple —20

Jill Stein’s VP Opens the Door to a National Abortion Ban

I submitted by absentee ballot today. In person, because I’m paranoid. There were a lot of people voting early. I hope turnout is big! We need more people involved in the political system, even though it’s easy to be apathetic about it all.

You might find this informative

I’ve kept out of this thread today until I listened to the Rogan podcast. I’m about 30 minutes in and Trump is just low energy rambling. I can see why some people find him charming or whatever because he doesn’t talk like a typical politician. However, if you listen more deeply and analyze it, he just spews off a lot of made up stats and “facts” and Rogan isn’t pushing back. I started listening to Rogan a few years back, but he lost me around the Covid years. Listening to this interview, he’s wise to butter up Trump if he wants the interview to go long. Trump bails on interviews if he gets challenged or fact checked. So far, Joe isn’t pushing back. He keeps agreeing with Trump and buttering him up. It’s a conversation, not a real interview, let’s be honest. Anyway, the single issue voting can be dangerous. I understand that. For example, as a meteorologist who has studied climatology, climate change is a very serious issue for me. Should I refuse to vote for Kamala because she (lukewarm) supports fracking now? Hell no. Trump is a climate change denier. He’s said some insanely stupid and false things about wind power, for example. Back to Rogan, they’re talking about sex change stuff now. It’s pretty ridiculous how the right is using the trans topic against democrats. If you support LGBTQI+ and trans rights, a vote for Trump or a defacto Trump vote (no vote or 3rd party vote) is contrary to the whole movement. Trump/the right want to go backwards and will try to erase decades of progress. It’s disgusting.

I agree with a lot of what you’re saying. I’m against the duopoly and I refuse to register as a democrat, even though on social policies I heavily lean left. The Democratic Party is a mess, but compared to Trump they seem pretty damn rational and reasonable on most issues. And I didn’t mean to label you in that camp (uneducated, mis/un-informed), but many voters are lacking info/education. I’ve engaged with many who seem to get their news from random sound bites or TikTok. That’s not how you make informed decisions. Why do so many eligible people not vote? A lot of it has to do with issues you bring up. But many people won’t vote period, including for third party candidates. I think we should have several competing parties. I’d like to think we could get somewhere with that, but it would probably take decades and there would be a lot of gridlock at first. Instead of 49% to 48% you’d see much smaller splits and it would be even harder to get a majority of people to agree on anything. Right now it’s the authoritarian/dictator-lite party vs. the corporate, often out of touch party. They both get suckered into the military-industrial complex, to some degree. What's probably most frustrating is that almost nothing ever gets done in our government because it’s one team vs. the other and very little compromise. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think there should be a 50/50 compromise between the parties. I disagree with almost everything the republicans claim to stand for. I wish there was a party on the left that aligned better with things that we both seem to have some agreement on.

You’re probably right that democrats aren’t doing the best job of reaching out to everyone. But then again, how do you appeal to everyone? The research probably suggests that most third party voters are less likely to vote at all than for Harris, or they might even vote for Trump or RFK, for example. I know you probably disagree, but many people believe that Jill is just playing spoiler and she doesn’t really care much about keeping Trump out of office. She has some highly sus baggage too, but I don’t wanna start drama about that. It’s not that voters are necessarily dumb, but a lot of them are uniformed, misinformed or just uneducated on the issues. Hell, I used to be in the undecided camp. I even thought I was libertarian for a while. I think I voted for Gary Johnson in 2012. I’m embarrassed to say I supported Ron Paul for a while too, until I started to research and think more critically. A lot of 3rd party candidates seem great at a quick glance. To someone who listens to a soundbite or two might even think RFK would be a great candidate. Once you go below surface level, then it all gets very questionable, to put it lightly. As much as the duopoly SUCKS, I can’t justify a vote for anyone aside from Kamala this election. Even if I disagree with her on some things.

Undecided can mean many things. Undecided to vote for the “lesser of two evils,” undecided to vote at all, undecided about third party vs. dem/rep, etc. Many voters are also not very engaged or educated and don’t have an informed opinion. Politics these days makes many people apathetic about it all.

Yup. Recent elections come down to tens of thousands of votes in a small handful of states. A 1-2% swing can literally cost you or win you the election.

They would create a sick music video together

Just curious, what democratic candidates do you think would be significantly better than Harris?

She probably looks unhappy when random people take her pics in private settings…

Thunder (because that’s my favorite song off of Banisters, which is in your display name, and you named me after my all time favorite song🖤🖤🖤🖤🖤)

High by the Beach

Unfortunately, most people are uneducated or simply don’t care about the issues. I think a majority of people vote for one of three reasons: 1. For the candidate on their “team” 2. Because they don’t like the other guy/gal 3. Single issue voters (like abortion, taxes, foreign policy) Or maybe there’s a 4th reason, because of something they saw on social media

Beetlejuice Beetlejuice (2024) It seems like a lot of people didn’t like it, but I really enjoyed it. It was fun and quirky, while neither a carbon copy of the first film, nor a totally divergent flop that many sequels end up being these days. Anyway, I thought it was a good mixture of fresh takes on the original Beetlejuice character/world, while still maintaining a lot of what made the first film fun: Use of stop action Quirky jokes and innuendo Not overusing the main character In summary, I think it was a fun film. Was it a cinematic masterpiece? No. Was it quirky, nostalgic and unique? Yes, yes, yes!