The Race For 2024

[Loren Pechtel]

Trump is proposing eliminating income taxes and replacing them with tariffs

Im no economist but how exactly does that work? Is it effectively a VAT?

Sounds like it's on imports only. Even more regressive than a VAT.

Fermi numbers: Needs to be about 50% on all imports assuming the market doesn't shift. It would have to be much higher as the market reacts.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I was thinking more along the lines of purging rolls etc rather than a variation on 1/6.

There will certainly be a very wide variety of voter suppression:

• Purging rolls. One trick they've used in the past is common-name flagging: Several of the commonest surnames (e.g. Brown, Jackson) are mostly black. GOP sotware probably has exemptions for 'Smith'
• Delays. In the recent past voters in Blue-leaning precincts have queued for hours to vote, while nearby Red-leaning precincts have had no delay.
• Intimidation: Trump has already called for an army of "poll watchers."
• Adjudication of mail-in ballots will be litigated. Ballot destruction is a real possibility.
• Machine rigging, poor ballot design and other gimmicks will be deployed again by cheaters.
• (Various other cheating by Reds will occur. Some top GOP officials have even cast multiple votes in recent elections.)

Recall that 2000 Florida would have gone Blue if military ballots in violation of a deadline had been rejected. Sure, the Ds didn't want to disenfranchise soldiers, but Rs would have leapt at the opportunity were colors reversed.

But possible cheating isn't just confined to Election Day.

Don't forget these:

• Campaign finance laws that disadvantage third parties and cement in the duopoly
• Ballot access laws that are waived for the duopoly but strictly enforced for third parties
• Debate exclusion for anyone outside the duopoly

 

[Swammerdami]

Don't forget these:

• Campaign finance laws that disadvantage third parties and cement in the duopoly
• Ballot access laws that are waived for the duopoly but strictly enforced for third parties
• Debate exclusion for anyone outside the duopoly

Perhaps we need a new thread to discuss the pros and cons of America's "duopoly."

America has had a political duopoly throughout almost its entire existence. (When the Republican Party came into existence in the 1850's, the Whig Party disappeared almost immediately.) And -- believe it or don't -- the American political system led to an unusually sensible democracy throughout almost all of the 19th and 20th centuries. The problem today is NOT that we need 3 or 4 sane parties. The problem is that we need TWO, but only have ONE.

Lesson from history: Germany had a multi-party system and in the first general election of 1932 the Nazis gained 37% of the popular vote -- not enough to form a government. Another bout was scheduled and the Nazi share fell to 33%. But they were still at an impasse. Paul Ludwig Hans Anton von Beneckendorff und von Hindenburg, President of the Republic, solved this impasse by passing the keys to Government to the "plurality" party.

A successful 3rd-party run in America, whether now or in the near future, would be a recipe for disaster. There is already serious worry that the candidacy of RFK, Jr. -- is he malicious or merely a moron? -- will return the White House to D.J. Trump.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I think most adults with varying degrees of pragmatism would agree.

Then why did most of the Democrats oppose more or less the same plan under Trump, and why did plenty of Republicans oppose the legislative version of what Biden is now resorting to an over-reaching executive order to accomplish? In short, if it is a popular idea, why is it so unpopular? It's almost as though all of that "pragmatism" is applied to different goals than solving the immigration crisis as such.

Trying to use an executive order to give yourself unchecked and uncheckable personal authority to accomplish what would otherwise be illegal isn't as pragmatic as you think it is, in any case. Is it practical to issue an order that you know will almost certainly be struck down in court? Yes, but again... only if your "pragmatism" is applied to different goals than solving the immigration crisis as such.

It seemed as though a bipartisan immigration bill had a chance earlier this year until one person said no. Politics and more politics. And now still more politics with this executive order.
Did people notice when the immigration bill earlier this year died? Do people notice legislation that does not get passed? Probably not so much. But a single headline stating Biden to limit asylum seekers probably gets a bit more notice. We'll see if it moves the needle. It's five months. Keeping Trump out of office by whatever means is paramount.

On my brief drive to get some breakfast this morning, the two headline stories were this executive order on the border, and Hunter Biden's trial getting underway. The White House has to do an executive order because the polling says he's not "tough on the border" enough, though I'd bet dollars to donuts that the right will scream about "executive overreach" even though he's doing more or less exactly what they want him to do.

And on the Hunter Biden front, I listened to hear the cries of "but there's no victim! How is this a crime?!" from the right, but alas...crickets.

The NRA is no where to be seen. in his defense of his 2nd Amendment rights. The parallel with Hunter and Trump is the 'this isn't usually prosecuted' defense. And as you note, you don't hear Trump supporters making it for Hunter Biden. Odd that.

The next story was about the far right governor of Montana (previously famous for body-slamming a reporter when he was a Congressman) facing calls from opponents that he's just not conservative enough.

I was shocked I didn't know that guy was elected Governor. I don't recall even knowing he was in the running. I know Electoral-Vote.com would have mentioned it. Some politician guy physically assaults a reporter, pleads to it, gets elected Governor in a couple years? I remember a time when that would have killed a career. I remember presidential hopeful George Allen being sunk by one word or Howard Dean by a hoarseful yell while coming off a cold into a unidirectional microphone. Today, you can brownshirt your way into a Governor's mansion.

Of all the things Hunter could be charged with, the government chose the least important events, but also the two most problematic to Republicans. Neither the drug law nor the gun law should exist. He was prosecuted for one and only one reason - so that people can say to Trump "if it were biased then Hunter wouldn't have been charged."

The reason he was charged with just that is because they don't touch "The Big Guy" and they are hard for Republicans to argue.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

There will certainly be a very wide variety of voter suppression:

• Purging rolls. One trick they've used in the past is common-name flagging: Several of the commonest surnames (e.g. Brown, Jackson) are mostly black. GOP sotware probably has exemptions for 'Smith'
• Delays. In the recent past voters in Blue-leaning precincts have queued for hours to vote, while nearby Red-leaning precincts have had no delay.
• Intimidation: Trump has already called for an army of "poll watchers."
• Adjudication of mail-in ballots will be litigated. Ballot destruction is a real possibility.
• Machine rigging, poor ballot design and other gimmicks will be deployed again by cheaters.
• (Various other cheating by Reds will occur. Some top GOP officials have even cast multiple votes in recent elections.)

Recall that 2000 Florida would have gone Blue if military ballots in violation of a deadline had been rejected. Sure, the Ds didn't want to disenfranchise soldiers, but Rs would have leapt at the opportunity were colors reversed.

But possible cheating isn't just confined to Election Day.

Don't forget these:

• Campaign finance laws that disadvantage third parties and cement in the duopoly
• Ballot access laws that are waived for the duopoly but strictly enforced for third parties
• Debate exclusion for anyone outside the duopoly

Perhaps we need a new thread to discuss the pros and cons of America's "duopoly."

You were listing ways methods of voter suppression and cheating, but left some items off your list. I was just finishing what you started.

Oh, are trying to imply that those methods are different somehow?

 

[Swammerdami]

Don't forget these:

• Campaign finance laws that disadvantage third parties and cement in the duopoly
• Ballot access laws that are waived for the duopoly but strictly enforced for third parties
• Debate exclusion for anyone outside the duopoly

Perhaps we need a new thread to discuss the pros and cons of America's "duopoly."

You were listing ways methods of voter suppression and cheating, but left some items off your list. I was just finishing what you started.

Oh, are trying to imply that those methods are different somehow?

YOU are what we used to call a "One-Issue Obsessionist." I'm not sure if you even care whether it is Trump or Biden who wins the November Election; you just want the "LP" to get 2% of the vote instead of 1%.

One of the two major Parties will win the White House in November. I was listing the cheating methods we can expect to affect that outcome.

When planning Presidential debates should we include only the two candidates likely to each get about 48% of the vote or also the guys who'll get 1% each? If the former, is that a feature or a bug? If the latter, should we also include candidates who'll get 0.1%? 0.01%? 0.0001%?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Don't forget these:

• Campaign finance laws that disadvantage third parties and cement in the duopoly
• Ballot access laws that are waived for the duopoly but strictly enforced for third parties
• Debate exclusion for anyone outside the duopoly

Perhaps we need a new thread to discuss the pros and cons of America's "duopoly."

You were listing ways methods of voter suppression and cheating, but left some items off your list. I was just finishing what you started.

Oh, are trying to imply that those methods are different somehow?

YOU are what we used to call a "One-Issue Obsessionist." I'm not sure if you even care whether it is Trump or Biden who wins the November Election; you just want the "LP" to get 2% of the vote instead of 1%.

One of the two major Parties will win the White House in November. I was listing the cheating methods we can expect to affect that outcome.

When planning Presidential debates should we include only the two candidates likely to each get about 48% of the vote or also the guys who'll get 1% each? If the former, is that a feature or a bug? If the latter, should we also include candidates who'll get 0.1%? 0.01%? 0.0001%?

And I also listed cheating methods we can expect to affect the outcome. Even if third parties only operate as spoilers, those keep them from spoiling as effectively.

It sounds like you are saying that those last three methods of cheating are acceptable because they don't impact the two big parties. Hmm, and here I thought you might be against cheating, instead you are only against it when it impacts you.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Operatives with GOP ties are helping Cornel West get on the ballot in a key state - June 7, 2024, 12:45 PM PDT - "Documents obtained by NBC News show operatives connected to a Colorado-based GOP firm helped the far-left presidential candidate in North Carolina."

Cornel West’s independent presidential campaign is broke. His former campaign manager says he knows nothing about ballot access. And he spent more on graphic design than petition-gathering in his most recent campaign finance report.

But tens of thousands of signatures have been gathered on behalf of the famed left-wing academic in key states thanks to self-organized grassroots volunteers — and some help from outside operatives tied to a Republican consulting firm.

Seems that Republicans are supporting him so that he will be a spoiler. They have already supported Greens for that reason. For instance, Montana Republicans bankrolled Green Party ballot access | AP News - 4:29 PM PDT, March 24, 2020

This is something the Republicans figured out decades ago. They'll support third party candidates that may split votes away from the Democrats, not because they agree with those candidates, but because they may split votes away from the Democrats.

They've been doing this since at least Nader in 2000.

Democrats haven't caught on, and will never catch on, and even when reading this and thinking about donating to some "right wing" smaller party will stop themselves saying "oh but they are so evil I can't support them" and put away their debit card without making a donation.

 

[Swammerdami]

YOU are what we used to call a "One-Issue Obsessionist." I'm not sure if you even care whether it is Trump or Biden who wins the November Election; you just want the "LP" to get 2% of the vote instead of 1%.

One of the two major Parties will win the White House in November. I was listing the cheating methods we can expect to affect that outcome.

When planning Presidential debates should we include only the two candidates likely to each get about 48% of the vote or also the guys who'll get 1% each? If the former, is that a feature or a bug? If the latter, should we also include candidates who'll get 0.1%? 0.01%? 0.0001%?

And I also listed cheating methods we can expect to affect the outcome. Even if third parties only operate as spoilers, those keep them from spoiling as effectively.

It sounds like you are saying that those last three methods of cheating are acceptable because they don't impact the two big parties. Hmm, and here I thought you might be against cheating, instead you are only against it when it impacts you.

Oh, criminy!! Start by answering the questions. Should the guy expecting 0.001% of the vote be allowed on-stage with the other debaters? Yes or No! Hunh? Hunh? Until you answer simple questions like that your comments are just garbled ad hominems.

Maybe I can save a round of rejoinders. Jason will argue that he knows the LP won't win in 2024, but with "fairness" they MIGHT get 10% of the vote in 2028 and in 2032 the U.S.A. will be gifted with a genius President who has no idea what we'll be using for money, but shutters the FedRes Banks on Inauguration Day!

But there's a flaw in your plan to throw the U.S. into chaos in 2033. Some intelligent observers worry that if Trump wins in 2024, the U.S. will not have any more free elections.

 

[Swammerdami]

This is something the Republicans figured out decades ago. They'll support third party candidates that may split votes away from the Democrats, not because they agree with those candidates, but because they may split votes away from the Democrats.

They've been doing this since at least Nader in 2000.

Democrats haven't caught on, and will never catch on, and even when reading this and thinking about donating to some "right wing" smaller party will stop themselves saying "oh but they are so evil I can't support them" and put away their debit card without making a donation.

So you do have SOME self-awareness!

Or is this just an appeal for rational thinkers to donate to the Bonzo "LP", thinking the relevant Bonzoites would otherwise vote for Trump?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

YOU are what we used to call a "One-Issue Obsessionist." I'm not sure if you even care whether it is Trump or Biden who wins the November Election; you just want the "LP" to get 2% of the vote instead of 1%.

One of the two major Parties will win the White House in November. I was listing the cheating methods we can expect to affect that outcome.

When planning Presidential debates should we include only the two candidates likely to each get about 48% of the vote or also the guys who'll get 1% each? If the former, is that a feature or a bug? If the latter, should we also include candidates who'll get 0.1%? 0.01%? 0.0001%?

And I also listed cheating methods we can expect to affect the outcome. Even if third parties only operate as spoilers, those keep them from spoiling as effectively.

It sounds like you are saying that those last three methods of cheating are acceptable because they don't impact the two big parties. Hmm, and here I thought you might be against cheating, instead you are only against it when it impacts you.

Oh, criminy!! Start by answering the questions. Should the guy expecting 0.001% of the vote be allowed on-stage with the other debaters? Yes or No! Hunh? Hunh? Until you answer simple questions like that your comments are just garbled ad hominems.

Maybe I can save a round of rejoinders. Jason will argue that he knows the LP won't win in 2024, but with "fairness" they MIGHT get 10% of the vote in 2028 and in 2032 the U.S.A. will be gifted with a genius President who has no idea what we'll be using for money, but shutters the FedRes Banks on Inauguration Day!

But there's a flaw in your plan to throw the U.S. into chaos in 2033. Some intelligent observers worry that if Trump wins in 2024, the U.S. will not have any more free elections.

Anyone who is on enough state ballots so that those states sum at least 270 electoral college votes should be on the debate stage, which is anathema to someone who endorses the duopoly the way you do. Your reductio ad absurdum of 0.001% of the vote just shows that you do indeed support the duopoly.

Now, the "left" news sources say if Trump gets elected that would be the end of our democracy. The "right" news sources say that if Biden gets re-elected that would be the end of our democracy. I think that the country has wandered into banana republic territory years ago. The titanic is sinking and you are venting your spleen, stomach, bladder, and bowels about who should be captain.

That I point out that there are more forms of cheating than the one you listed angers you. That I point out you only oppose cheating that impacts you directly enrages you. But you don't refute them because you can't refute them.

 

[Elixir]

So the revenue target would be impossible to meet.

Whose revenue target? It certainly meets every target the billionaires can imagine.
This amounts to all American wage earners getting a cut in pay, even if they're getting raises. Billionaires get to extract infinite personal "income" from their holdings that are currently just assets that would be taxed heavily if tapped as gains, but with this lovely arrangement, can be converted to hundreds of millions or billions of dollars per year of tax free income. Who cares? People who wear China-made shoes? No worries, they're mostly MAGAts, who are too fucking dim to even notice that Trump is the one causing their pain.

Some intelligent observers worry that if Trump wins in 2024, the U.S. will not have any more free elections.

I think the converse is more true: anyone with a room temperature or better IQ who has been paying any attention whatsoever, knows perfectly well that this will be the last real election if Trump manages to win it. Also, if he manages to steal it, 2020 will have been the last real election.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

This is something the Republicans figured out decades ago. They'll support third party candidates that may split votes away from the Democrats, not because they agree with those candidates, but because they may split votes away from the Democrats.

They've been doing this since at least Nader in 2000.

Democrats haven't caught on, and will never catch on, and even when reading this and thinking about donating to some "right wing" smaller party will stop themselves saying "oh but they are so evil I can't support them" and put away their debit card without making a donation.

So you do have SOME self-awareness!

Or is this just an appeal for rational thinkers to donate to the Bonzo "LP", thinking the relevant Bonzoites would otherwise vote for Trump?

Nah, I was talking about "right wing" smaller parties, not the LP. Maybe the Constitution Party.

 

[Swammerdami]

(I don't see the .signatures when I browse this site with my phone. Some may miss the .sigs even on their laptop. I've pasted in Jason's .signatures so everyone can enjoy them.)

YOU are what we used to call a "One-Issue Obsessionist." I'm not sure if you even care whether it is Trump or Biden who wins the November Election; you just want the "LP" to get 2% of the vote instead of 1%.

One of the two major Parties will win the White House in November. I was listing the cheating methods we can expect to affect that outcome.

When planning Presidential debates should we include only the two candidates likely to each get about 48% of the vote or also the guys who'll get 1% each? If the former, is that a feature or a bug? If the latter, should we also include candidates who'll get 0.1%? 0.01%? 0.0001%?

And I also listed cheating methods we can expect to affect the outcome. Even if third parties only operate as spoilers, those keep them from spoiling as effectively.

It sounds like you are saying that those last three methods of cheating are acceptable because they don't impact the two big parties. Hmm, and here I thought you might be against cheating, instead you are only against it when it impacts you.

No Biden, no KKK, no Fascist USA

If you like socialism and hate fascism you are inconsistent.

No Biden, no KKK, no Fascist USA

If you like socialism and hate fascism you are inconsistent.

First: I think any controversy will be about RFK, Jr. -- or is he also the "LP" candidate? But fine; List another dozen types of cheating if you wish: I was focused on cheating DELIBERATELY designed to give one of the two Parties an unfair advantage.

Oh, criminy!! Start by answering the questions. Should the guy expecting 0.001% of the vote be allowed on-stage with the other debaters? Yes or No! Hunh? Hunh? Until you answer simple questions like that your comments are just garbled ad hominems.

Maybe I can save a round of rejoinders. Jason will argue that he knows the LP won't win in 2024, but with "fairness" they MIGHT get 10% of the vote in 2028 and in 2032 the U.S.A. will be gifted with a genius President who has no idea what we'll be using for money, but shutters the FedRes Banks on Inauguration Day!

But there's a flaw in your plan to throw the U.S. into chaos in 2033. Some intelligent observers worry that if Trump wins in 2024, the U.S. will not have any more free elections.

Anyone who is on enough state ballots so that those states sum at least 270 electoral college votes should be on the debate stage, which is anathema to someone who endorses the duopoly the way you do. Your reductio ad absurdum of 0.001% of the vote just shows that you do indeed support the duopoly.

Now, the "left" news sources say if Trump gets elected that would be the end of our democracy. The "right" news sources say that if Biden gets re-elected that would be the end of our democracy.

I hear rational observers voice such concerns about the Nazi-like MAGA movement, which actually has MILLIONS of followers saying that they are willing to contest the election with violence if Trump loses.

Do you have similar examples for your "same-same" claim?? (I am NOT holding my breath.)

I think that the country has wandered into banana republic territory years ago. The titanic is sinking and you are venting your spleen, stomach, bladder, and bowels about who should be captain.

That I point out that there are more forms of cheating than the one you listed angers you. That I point out you only oppose cheating that impacts you directly enrages you. But you don't refute them because you can't refute them.

No Biden, no KKK, no Fascist USA

If you like socialism and hate fascism you are inconsistent.

This is something the Republicans figured out decades ago. They'll support third party candidates that may split votes away from the Democrats, not because they agree with those candidates, but because they may split votes away from the Democrats.

They've been doing this since at least Nader in 2000.

Democrats haven't caught on, and will never catch on, and even when reading this and thinking about donating to some "right wing" smaller party will stop themselves saying "oh but they are so evil I can't support them" and put away their debit card without making a donation.

No Biden, no KKK, no Fascist USA

If you like socialism and hate fascism you are inconsistent.

So you do have SOME self-awareness!

Or is this just an appeal for rational thinkers to donate to the Bonzo "LP", thinking the relevant Bonzoites would otherwise vote for Trump?

Nah, I was talking about "right wing" smaller parties, not the LP. Maybe the Constitution Party.

No Biden, no KKK, no Fascist USA

If you like socialism and hate fascism you are inconsistent.

 

[bilby]

Trump is proposing eliminating income taxes and replacing them with tariffs

Im no economist but how exactly does that work? Is it effectively a VAT?

In 2022, the federal income raised about $2.6 trillion while import tariffs raised about $0.1 trillion. So the proposal is effectively bullshit.

That doesn’t explain to me how a system works with tariffs and no income tax? Presumably it means that everything becomes much more expensive because the government is collecting a Huge sales tax essentially. Right? So

It is a sales tax on imported goods and services. Imports are a small portion of US spending (roughly 16 to 17 % of GDP).Given the size of the tariffs needed to try to increase revenue by a factor 2600%, US demand for imports would fall dramatically. So the revenue target would be impossible to meet.

It would essentially put an end to almost all imports to the US, thereby also putting an end to any revenue it would raise. Simultaneously, it would end most US exports, as other countries would respond in kind with tarriffs on US goods and services.

This would leave the US government without revenue, and with massive unemployment due to lost export markets.

Either the government could slash spending to try to prevent inflation consequent to the huge drop in tax revenue; or they (via the Fed) could hike interest rates sky high, causing even more unemployment; or they could continue to spend despite the lack of both growth and revenue, causing hyperinflation.

All of that would make the Great Depression look like a fun time.

This idea is so massively harmful to Anerican interests that it must have originated in a Russian troll-farm. It would do almost as much damage to the USA as a Russian strategic nuclear attack, but with the advantage (from Russia's point of view) that it wouldn't trigger a retaliatory response.

 

[Swammerdami]

Trump is proposing eliminating income taxes and replacing them with tariffs

In 2022, the federal income raised about $2.6 trillion while import tariffs raised about $0.1 trillion. So the proposal is effectively bullshit.

That doesn’t explain to me how a system works with tariffs and no income tax? Presumably it means that everything becomes much more expensive because the government is collecting a Huge sales tax essentially. Right? So

It is a sales tax on imported goods and services. Imports are a small portion of US spending (roughly 16 to 17 % of GDP).Given the size of the tariffs needed to try to increase revenue by a factor 2600%, US demand for imports would fall dramatically. So the revenue target would be impossible to meet.

It would essentially put an end to almost all imports to the US, thereby also putting an end to any revenue it would raise. Simultaneously, it would end most US exports, as other countries would respond in kind with tarriffs on US goods and services.

This would leave the US government without revenue, and with massive unemployment due to lost export markets.

Either the government could slash spending to try to prevent inflation consequent to the huge drop in tax revenue; or they (via the Fed) could hike interest rates sky high, causing even more unemployment; or they could continue to spend despite the lack of both growth and revenue, causing hyperinflation.

All of that would make the Great Depression look like a fun time.

This idea is so massively harmful to Anerican interests that it must have originated in a Russian troll-farm. It would do almost as much damage to the USA as a Russian strategic nuclear attack, but with the advantage (from Russia's point of view) that it wouldn't trigger a retaliatory response.

The QOPAnon Party has been completely taken over by liars and lunatics.

I am baffled that the intelligent posters at IIDB think a QOPAnon "proposal" is worthy of refutation, let alone any reaction but amusement or contempt.

 

[lpetrich]

America has had a political duopoly throughout almost its entire existence. (When the Republican Party came into existence in the 1850's, the Whig Party disappeared almost immediately.) And -- believe it or don't -- the American political system led to an unusually sensible democracy throughout almost all of the 19th and 20th centuries. The problem today is NOT that we need 3 or 4 sane parties. The problem is that we need TWO, but only have ONE.

The Founders seemed to want a no-party system, but once the government they created went into action, its participants split up into two parties: the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans, the First Party System.

The Feds were destroyed by the DR's, who co-opted much of their platform, and it didn't help that the Feds were on the wrong side of the War of 1812.

The DR's then split in two about Andrew Jackson, supporters becoming the Democrats and opponents becoming various parties, then the Whigs, thus forming the Second Party System.

Later, the Whigs disintegrated because of being split by slavery, and among the various resulting party, the Republicans emerged as the winner. Abe Lincoln, for instance, was an ex-Whig. Thus the Third Party System.

There were various political shakeups since then, forming the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Party Systems, and we seem like we are moving into a seventh one.

Lesson from history: Germany had a multi-party system and in the first general election of 1932 the Nazis gained 37% of the popular vote -- not enough to form a government. Another bout was scheduled and the Nazi share fell to 33%. But they were still at an impasse. Paul Ludwig Hans Anton von Beneckendorff und von Hindenburg, President of the Republic, solved this impasse by passing the keys to Government to the "plurality" party.

All that shows is that democracy can be destroyed from inside, by one party taking over and suppressing all parties but itself.

A successful 3rd-party run in America, whether now or in the near future, would be a recipe for disaster. There is already serious worry that the candidacy of RFK, Jr. -- is he malicious or merely a moron? -- will return the White House to D.J. Trump.

RFK Jr. is taking some positions typical of the Right, like anti-vaxxism and weeping for statues of Confederate leaders.

 

[lpetrich]

Don't forget these:

• Campaign finance laws that disadvantage third parties and cement in the duopoly
• Ballot access laws that are waived for the duopoly but strictly enforced for third parties
• Debate exclusion for anyone outside the duopoly

What campaign-finance laws? What waiving of ballot-access laws? What debate exclusion?

Presidential-debate hosts may not want to host marginal candidates, vanity-run candidates, and candidates who are not very serious.

I suggest forgetting about the Presidency and focusing on downballot races. Treat Presidential campaigns as harm reduction rather than trying to elect the perfect candidate.

 

[Swammerdami]

Lesson from history: Germany had a multi-party system and in the first general election of 1932 the Nazis gained 37% of the popular vote -- not enough to form a government. Another bout was scheduled and the Nazi share fell to 33%. But they were still at an impasse. Paul Ludwig Hans Anton von Beneckendorff und von Hindenburg, President of the Republic, solved this impasse by passing the keys to Government to the "plurality" party.

All that shows is that democracy can be destroyed from inside, by one party taking over and suppressing all parties but itself.

The point is that the Nazis came to power initially with only 33% of the vote, but with that 33% far more than that of any other party.
In a system with only TWO Parties, one needs much closer to 50% to win.

A system where fascists need 50% to gain control seems better than one where 33% is enough.

Once in power, the Nazis changed rules so that they would win every subsequent "election." The fascists on the verge of gaining control in the U.S. have already announced their plans for similar rule changes.

 

[Elixir]

He was prosecuted for one and only one reason - so that people can say to Trump "if it were biased then Hunter wouldn't have been charged."

^ certainly among the top 0.01% of stupidest sentences ever posted on IIDB.
It was a Trumpsucking prosecutor who brought the charges. You’re saying he did it to hurt Trump. Presumably because you are without a clue, as usual.

I do agree that it was done for no other reason than to hurt a presidential candidate. But it wasn’t your orange boy.