What will be the October Surprise?

[Elixir]

Not a fan of Trump in the least.

Funny how you keep having to repeat that.
It’s almost as if the rest of your postings are counter-indications to that statement.

But I guess the simple explanation might apply; you dislike Trump and hate everyone to the left of him.

 

[ZiprHead]

Why vote for someone who cannot possibly win? Why does that make you feel better or more true to yourself?

Because it's my vote.

And "because they're winning" is not the only reason to vote (or not vote) for a candidate.

I agree. But my point was that everyone’s vote does count and it does say something. In close elections, voting for candidates who cannot possibly win usually or in my experience, has always resulted in the worst candidate being elected.

Which is why I don’t do that any more.

So did you vote for the winner in every election since that one time you were traumatized by voting third party many years ago?

Bush in 2000 and 2004
Obama in 2008 and 2012
Trump in 2016
Biden in 2020

Never said I was traumatized. What an emotional leap you made!

I said that I learned my lesson voting third party and don’t do that any more. But I know a bunch who dud vote third party in 2016. Which is probably what has made me so cognizant of the damage that can result, and what has re-driven home the hard lesson I learned years earlier.

Of those last four POTUS elected, I voted for two good choices who won.

For the record I didn't vote for Obama, but that was because I wasn't old enough to in his first term and still not informed enough about politics for the second term, when I was around 18 or 19. Plus I was going through some personal traumatic shit (unrelated to politics) at the time.

Wow! You're just a baby compared to most of us.

 

[Derec]

But I guess the simple explanation might apply; you dislike Trump and hate everyone to the left of him.

Not "everyone to the left of Trump". But I dislike the left-wing fringe of the Democratic Party that has become more prominent and powerful in recent years.
Disliking them is not contradictory with disliking Trump, but I have to repeat the latter since some people can't get their heads around it.

 

[Derec]

You assume that Harris only was with Brown for political advantage for her career—

It is very likely given their extreme age gap. It is at the very least appearance of impropriety that he put her on state boards.

an assumption I’ve never seen you make about a someone white or male.

I do not recall a similar case. Do you have an example of a male politician who, when starting out in his political career, entered into a sexual relationship with a woman (or man) twice his age and benefitted from it in the form of political appointments?

You’ve never criticized her husband for riding her coat tails, for instance.

A silly example. He is not half her age, and she hasn't put him on any boards to my knowledge.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Wow! You're just a baby compared to most of us.

And you know what's crazy? I joined the forum the year I got out of middle school in 2006.

 

[ZiprHead]

How is me posting a clip of what she said during her run for president in 2020 not something she actually said or not relevant to the office she was seeking?

Wow. One clip of what she said compared to numerous posts calling her "heels up" and claiming she slept her way to the top.

Can I see the official IIDB list of who can be made fun of and who can't, and the reasons why? You have created a whole thread in the Humor section about "Derogatory Names for Trump", yet you're complaining if someone makes up a derogatory name for a public figure of their choice? I get that its Trump and he is worthy of a lot of the shit and hate that comes his way, but I find the double standards to be pretty annoying. If someone wanted to create a thread in the humor section called "Derogatory Names for Kamala" would that be OK?

Did I say Derec couldn't do it. No. Am I not allowed to criticize the political views of others on this board? Gee, maybe we should just shut down the entire Politics forum.

 

[ZiprHead]

Can I see the official IIDB list of who can be made fun of and who can't, and the reasons why? You have created a whole thread in the Humor section about "Derogatory Names for Trump", yet you're complaining if someone makes up a derogatory name for a public figure of their choice? I get that its Trump and he is worthy of a lot of the shit and hate that comes his way, but I find the double standards to be pretty annoying. If someone wanted to create a thread in the humor section called "Derogatory Names for Kamala" would that be OK?

That's a good question. I did not even use a derogatory name for KH in this thread. It was dragged from an old thread (where I used it as an example of just this kind of rank hypocrisy) to distract from the points I was making.

Let me get this straight. Because it's in a differant thread we should act like it never happened?

 

[Toni]

How does age make one susceptible to being dragged to the left? Biden is not some doddering old fool nor is he some vainglorious idiot.

People get more susceptible to being manipulated in old age. That's why scams targeting seniors are so common.
In any case, I do not think Biden would have been so receptive to the likes Alexandria Wormtongue whispering in his ear.

Trump’s age has not made him susceptible to being influenced by far right wingers and foreign dictators. His lack of character, fear of being rightfully prosecuted for his many crimes, and his love of adulation, however artificial. Oh, and he’s developed a love of power.

Not a fan of Trump in the least. That does not mean I have to accept anything Biden does unquestioningly.

The thing is, the US has shifted right since the Reagan era so that Biden’s middle of the road seems far left to you.

No. Biden definitely swerved left since he won nomination in 2020. There is no question about it.

*Some* people get more susceptible to manipulation as they get older. Biden does not strike me as being easy to manipulate.

I think his age is the biggest argument against him but my experience is that there are plenty of people significantly older than Biden who are still really with it. And those much younger who are not.

 

[Toni]

You assume that Harris only was with Brown for political advantage for her career—

It is very likely given their extreme age gap. It is at the very least appearance of impropriety that he put her on state boards.

an assumption I’ve never seen you make about a someone white or male.

I do not recall a similar case. Do you have an example of a male politician who, when starting out in his political career, entered into a sexual relationship with a woman (or man) twice his age and benefitted from it in the form of political appointments?

You’ve never criticized her husband for riding her coat tails, for instance.

A silly example. He is not half her age, and she hasn't put him on any boards to my knowledge.

I know a number of happy couples with a significant age difference. No one seems to be using anyone…

 

[Politesse]

BA from Howard, a JD from UC Hastings. Ho hum. Law degrees are very common among politicians. What makes her "one of the most academically qualified" in your opinion?

The number of presidents with a J.D. or roughly equivalent but defunct LL.B. is short: Taft, Hayes, the Roosevelts, Nixon, Ford, Clinton, Obama, Biden. Note the recent partisan trend. Three had Master's Degrees in less relevant fields. Coolidge alone a PhD. But I'm considering timeframe as well. The workload necessary for Taft to earn his LL.B. was laughable compared to someone in a modern program of study. I'm also taking other honors and academic reputation into account. GW had an MBA, but no sane person would ever cite one of his papers as a resource. Good for a laugh, maybe.

Do I think every president needs to have an advanced degree? Of course not. There are many avenues of competency in this world, and not all of them end in a Ivy League degree. This is fine. But if someone has attained high honors, their stupidity or ignorance is a very silly line of attack in my opinion. Why not attack her for being an "egghead" or "living in an ivory tower" or "loving her books more than people"? Of course, I know the reason why. But I also know you'd never want to admit it...

 

[TSwizzle]

You assume that Harris only was with Brown for political advantage for her career—

It is very likely given their extreme age gap. It is at the very least appearance of impropriety that he put her on state boards.

It’s the type of scenario that usually attracts the ire of the “me too” crowd.

A30 year age gap is pretty gross.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But I guess the simple explanation might apply; you dislike Trump and hate everyone to the left of him.

Not "everyone to the left of Trump". But I dislike the left-wing fringe of the Democratic Party that has become more prominent and powerful in recent years.

*spit take*

Disliking them is not contradictory with disliking Trump, but I have to repeat the latter since some people can't get their heads around it.

That is generally because you discuss your distaste with the more prominent now far left wing of the Democrat party than Trump.

 

[Elixir]

A30 year age gap is pretty gross.

Like between Donny & Ivanka? Oh, wait …

 

[Colonel Sanders]

I agree that fracking should be allowed to continue in the US - otherwise the US would have to rely on imports of oil. O&G is not going away any time soon no matter how many windfarms and solar panels we make.

Indeed. Even if fossil fuels were to be unnecessary for electricity production, decarbonizing the transport sector will take decades. Electric cars are still <10% of new car sales, and cars can easily last >15 years. California wants to ban ICE cars in 2035, which means that even that state will have significant ICE vehicles on the roads as late as 2050, at which time it might be opportune to institute a "cash for clunkers" type program to remove the survivors. But that is a quarter century from now.
Similarly with gas-fired furnaces for heating. Those units can last 15-20 years. It would be cost-prohibitive to remove relatively new gas furnaces and replace them with electric heat pumps.
So, fossil fuels will be with us for a while, no matter how many GND resolutions AOC et al introduce on the floor of the House.

You're right. It is going to take some time to replace those fossil fuel items.

Here's the problem: we've been able to do this for 30 years now and conservatives have fought this progress tooth and nail. Remember the Pontiac EV1? It first hit the road in 1996. While it was an ugly little thing, the viability of the technology has been around for a long time.

My house is new and has solar panels and a tankless water heating system, but those things aren't new either.

Had conservatives gotten on board with this stuff, it'd be the reality now. After 9/11 Dubbya/Cheney had the opportunity to transform this nation and the world by getting off fossil fuels to the greatest extent possible. It would've produced new tech, new factories, new jobs, etc. Instead they launched an unnecessary and poorly planned war in Iraq and we're only marginally farther along because of that.

While the GOP has gone all in on fascism and religious fundamentalism, they've also remained the party of We Can't! We Can't! We Can't!

 

[laughing dog]

I agree that fracking should be allowed to continue in the US - otherwise the US would have to rely on imports of oil. O&G is not going away any time soon no matter how many windfarms and solar panels we make.

Indeed. Even if fossil fuels were to be unnecessary for electricity production, decarbonizing the transport sector will take decades. Electric cars are still <10% of new car sales, and cars can easily last >15 years. California wants to ban ICE cars in 2035, which means that even that state will have significant ICE vehicles on the roads as late as 2050, at which time it might be opportune to institute a "cash for clunkers" type program to remove the survivors. But that is a quarter century from now.
Similarly with gas-fired furnaces for heating. Those units can last 15-20 years. It would be cost-prohibitive to remove relatively new gas furnaces and replace them with electric heat pumps.
So, fossil fuels will be with us for a while, no matter how many GND resolutions AOC et al introduce on the floor of the House.

You're right. It is going to take some time to replace those fossil fuel items.

Here's the problem: we've been able to do this for 30 years now and conservatives have fought this progress tooth and nail. Remember the Pontiac EV1? It first hit the road in 1996. While it was an ugly little thing, the viability of the technology has been around for a long time.

My house is new and has solar panels and a tankless water heating system, but those things aren't new either.

Had conservatives gotten on board with this stuff, it'd be the reality now. After 9/11 Dubbya/Cheney had the opportunity to transform this nation and the world by getting off fossil fuels to the greatest extent possible. It would've produced new tech, new factories, new jobs, etc. Instead they launched an unnecessary and poorly planned war in Iraq and we're only marginally farther along because of that.

While the GOP has gone all in on fascism and religious fundamentalism, they've also remained the party of We Can't! We Can't! We Can't!

One can hardly fault them for that. Fascism snd religious fundamentalism is exhausting. I’m surprised they can even utter We can’t”.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You assume that Harris only was with Brown for political advantage for her career—

It is very likely given their extreme age gap. It is at the very least appearance of impropriety that he put her on state boards.

It’s the type of scenario that usually attracts the ire of the “me too” crowd.

A30 year age gap is pretty gross.

Okay, 24 years for Donnie and Melania. And we are talking fat Elvis Donnie, not young Elvis.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Not a fan of Trump in the least.

Funny how you keep having to repeat that.
It’s almost as if the rest of your postings are counter-indications to that statement.

That's because you think everyone who doesn't love Biden must love Trump instead.

 

[bilby]

Here's the problem: we've been able to do this for 30 years now and conservatives have fought this progress tooth and nail.

Here's the real problem; We have been able to do without fossil fuels for 70 years now, and both sides of politics have fought this progress tooth and nail.

The worst offenders were the (not conservative at all) hippies and lefties of the 1960s and '70s, who were determined to prevent the use of big technology of any kind to solve any problem.

They didn't (and still don't) care that size isn't a relevant factor. They just refuse to support anything that they don't fully understand, and refuse to learn anything discovered during or after the Industrial Revolution, which they see as an unalloyed bad thing.

We are faced with a partisan choice between a bunch of greedy fucks who don't give a crap about the planet as long as they get rich selling coal, oil, and gas; And a bunch of hopeless dreamers who want to return to the pre-Industrial age, and don't care nor want to hear about the impossibility of supporting eight billion humans without big industrial behemoths.

Those few lefties who do begin to get an inkling of the problem immediately turn to genocide ("We can't support eight billion, and need to drastically cut population") because the idea of killing seven billion people is more palatable to them than the idea of building a few dozen, gigawatt-scale, clean power plants.

We are stuck choosing between people who refuse to see the problem, and people who refuse to implement the solution. And both groups have massive power, and an almost religious zeal in pursuit of their insane agendas.

We could have it all; But we are too fucking dumb to reach out and take it.

 

[Toni]

Not a fan of Trump in the least.

Funny how you keep having to repeat that.
It’s almost as if the rest of your postings are counter-indications to that statement.

That's because you think everyone who doesn't love Biden must love Trump instead.

In practical terms, for the purposes of the upcoming 2024 elections that is exactly what it means. Or at least that you are willing to tolerate another Trump term (perhaps for life) along with others of similar ilk who appear on the ballot in every state in positions from very local to state to national offices.

I understand that it stinks to have to choose between two candidates you dislike, and how tempting it is to simply not choose either. I really do.

IMO, we need to trounce the GOP in this election and every election for the next few election cycles in order to drum it into their heads that we will not tolerate a fascist state or a dictator and that we do not wish to join the insane Project 2025's quest for pseudo theocratic rule.

Let's keep Margaret Atwood's dystopic take on US politics in the fiction section.

 

[Toni]

Instead, I grew up and realized that adults sometimes have to make difficult choices, sometimes between a set of choices they see as very poor

If your choice cannot change the outcome in any way, why not vote as you choose? It's your vote, not anyone else's. Unless you live in a state where the outcome of the election is some way uncertain, voting for "the better of two bad options" is making sacrifices for no reason, sacrifices that result in no gain. It's like thinking you have to marry the opposite sex in order to foster the next generation, despite knowing yourself to be both gay and infertile. It's not just that my vote for Stein didn't result in Obama losing California, it's that it couldn't have. It's just not possible. You might as well imagine that the sun will rise in the west tomorrow because you let someone go out of turn at an intersection this afternoon. Obama could not have lost California, especially in the primary, and believing that I somehow owed him unconditional fealty even in situations where it truly doesn't matter, just for being a better man than Romney? That is a childish, not adult, frame of mind. Tishing me for voting for Romney is especially silly. Obama won the Democratic primary that year by 90.1%. But you claim he needed one more vote, from me? Why? What for? What would he do with it? How would it have helped him in any way?

What are you sacrificing if you vote for the least unpalatable candidate? Your chance to make a 'statement?'

The reality is that polls are often wrong, sometimes wildly so. You cannot possibly know that your vote will not matter. If your vote doesn't matter, then why vote? Why should anyone vote, ever, if it doesn't matter?

Obviously, you are an adult of voting age and more than that, an intelligent, well educated, thoughtful and caring human being. Even more importantly, you have free will (sorry for offending those who do not believe in free will but I do.) and you have the right to vote for whomever you choose.

The big question is: should Trump win, or sufficient Trump allies win, will you have the same right in 2028? Never would I have ever, ever thought that it was possible that the US democracy could fall, but it well might. It's not something I will risk to make an anonymous ideological point.