doctordevice @ doctordevice @lemmy.ca

Posts

0

Comments

213

Joined

1 yr. ago

Good suggestions, and yeah if someone has an accent I'm trying to identify I'll usually ask about the accent and region I think it's from.

I still feel a slight ick from "originally." And usually I'm talking with people from my general region and I'm really just asking what local town they grew up in, so it's sometimes more "did you grow up in [current location, or area they're talking about]?"

IMO 59/60 should be about the max for a first term president. That would put them at retirement age if they serve two terms. I think Walz is a great choice to make the whole thing more palatable to progressives like me (who feel that now for a third time in a row we've been deprived of a fair primary). I do wish the VP were a little younger than the president to set them up for a run of their own afterwards. Not sure if Walz has any intention of running afterwards, but we'd be right back to a retirement age candidate if Kamala serves two terms.

Personally, I'd like to see more presidents in their 40s or early 50s. That's plenty of time to get "experience" while still in principle being able to understand the needs of the majority of people. Plus it helps that they'll still live for a while in the world they shape after their term.

I really hate that racists have ruined a perfectly good question. I often want to actually ask people where in the US they're from, but I can't ask the straightforward "where are you from?" if the person isn't white because I know it can easily be interpreted as the racist version.

Instead I now ask "are you from [city we're in]?" to try to make it clear I'm assuming they're from the US.

Yeah, man. I'll gnaw your face off.

Teh C.

I said consummate Vs. Consummate!!

We had that light switch installed for you so you could turn the lights on and off. Not so you could throw light switch raves!

Calmly? You invoked a sexist term and then when I called you out on it you called me "triggered" and now "butthurt." It's very clear what kind of person you are now, and it's not the even-tempered tolerant person you like to paint yourself to be.

I do want an honest discussion, my first comment was very respectful of our differences of opinion. You then immediately brought in bigotry-charged name-calling to the thread.

Being a bigot "calmly" isn't something anyone should ever tolerate.

You were the one who brought the sexist term "Bernie Bro" in. That's a cheap smear campaign term designed to invoke sexism. Stop using it.

When you want to talk without your unnecessary insults and sexist terms, I'm happy to talk.

God, these people are so fucking intolerant of any criticism of their party, it's absurd. I really tried to engage in an honest discourse and the person reverted straight back to petty sexist bullshit and nonsequitors, ignoring what I said entirely.

It's such an embodiment of the out-of-touch Democratic party and how they can't possibly fathom any other point of view.

I tried to engage you in honest discourse explaining my position and you immediately went straight to all of your favorite one-liners designed to undermine without actually addressing anything.

All of your points are easily refuted and I'm happy to write them out if you need me to, but it's a conversation that's been done to death since 2016. I'll do one: "Bernie Bros" voted Hillary better than Hillary supporters voted for Obama. Leave your sexist bullshit at home unless you want to admit your camp is racist.

Since you seem willing to engage in discourse about this, I feel similarly to the person you replied to and can explain my position. I don't want to discourage anyone from voting, I have two goals:

1. Don't concede the White House to Trump
2. Fight back against the Democratic Party's efforts to reduce the voice of the people.

I'm guessing we agree on 1 and disagree on the premise of 2. I see 2 as a systemic pattern that really launched after the 2008 primaries when Obama disrupted the plan to place Hillary in the White House. It came to a head in 2016 and has been rippling ever since.

I never believed Joe should have run again in the first place, and in the last month it became clear that him running was detrimental to 1. So we push for him to step aside, while I still think he shouldn't have run in the first place. He steps down, and you feel satisfied because goal 1 is protected. But I'm deeply unsettled by the damage that has been done to 2. The Democrats just figured out how to skip the voice of the people entirely.

The last time this happened (1968 primaries, eerily similar) the Democrats launched a committee to reform the primary process into what it is today. A big improvement over what it was before, but Biden just revealed a significant weakness in it.

I'm happy to vote for Harris to fulfill 1, I'm thrilled that there was a surge in registrations. But if the Democrats don't address the critical problem of this process we all just witnessed, I fear 2 becomes unreachable. The Democrats are our only hope of saving our democracy, so if they abandon democracy within their party (like I have seen happening over the last 16 years), it's a hollow victory.

Looks like we're back in full "you can't criticize the Democrats at all or you're a Russian troll" territory. I hate this sycophancy.

I'm with you on this one. The Democrats have been skirting democracy to the best of their ability for years. I'm glad we've got a better chance of defeating Trump now, but I'm unwilling to concede the democratic process of nominating candidates. If we celebrate this fucked up process instead of holding their feet to the fire, they're just going to learn that actually they don't need to bother involving the people at all. We cannot give a single inch to the plutocrats at the top.

I feel like this speech was unnecessary. It only made me feel worse. I need the Democrats, and especially Biden, to stop soapboxing about "saving democracy" and "presidents are not kings" when they literally just skipped the democratic part of choosing a nominee for it to be handed down like a crown.

In fact, I'd feel a lot better if they apologized for it and told us how they were going to stop it from happening in the future.

Edit: wow, y'all really freak out at any suggestion of wrongdoing by the Democrats. I'd suggest looking backwards at how we ended up with the current primary process. 1968 Democratic primaries. The Democrats recognized the problem then and introduced reform, why is that such an outlandish thing to ask for now?

The same kind who have a separate variable for ignore-wordlist-regex that's just another list of users almost identical to the first one.

We did not have a real primary, incumbency primaries are always just going through the motions without real challenge. Had Biden chosen to do the right thing and not seek reelection in the first place, we would have had a real primary. As it stands, we will have the first nominee since 1968 to win the nomination without a single vote from the people.

That year was such a disaster that it resulted in the creation of the current system of national binding primaries. The fact that our system is so fragile that the voice of the people can still so easily be skipped is extremely problematic. This situation demands reform or else the Democrats can take advantage of this anytime they want to avoid hearing what the people want.

What needed to happen was a primary process. This whole situation has robbed the people of any choice. I'm going to vote for Harris, but I'm deeply unsettled by what's happened. I think the convention should feature a pledge to hold an open primary in 2028 even if we have an incumbent.

To be clear: that was my take on it. I don't think that was the article's intention. OP did accurately copy the actual article title.

It is kind of nonsensical. But it (unintentionally?) highlights the deep irony that our saving grace from dictatorship is a candidate who has never received a primary vote for president. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad Biden dropped out and I think we have a better chance of keeping Trump out now, but we are far from a democracy right now.

I'm glad he dropped out, I feel like we actually have a shot in November. But with his endorsement of Kamala, which makes sense since she will face the fewest legal and logistical issues of any replacement, the Democrats have corrupted an incredibly important milestone if we do win. The first woman to be POTUS, the first woman of color to be POTUS, will have a tarnished legacy since she skipped the primary process (and skipped out in 2020 before any votes were even cast).

That's three incredibly ill-handled presidential primaries in a row. Do better, Democrats.