Jump to content

2024 Presidential Election Thread - Let's keep the party going.


Recommended Posts

Posted
9 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Sorry to ruin your narrative, but this independent has voted Dem in every election since 2004.

And yet still had to ask the question about how the parties are different. 

Posted
Just now, DixonHur said:

Didn't realize the electorate outside of the 2-party system was not allowed to have opinions.

Your party can choose whomever they want, but that doesn't mean I can't suggest an alternative, or that I am beholden to vote for your choice.

Put another way, what % of registered Dems would you estimate are voting FOR Biden, and not AGAINST Trump?

IE would the Dems not vote for a Dem other than Biden?  

I can assure you a lot more independents would be happy to pull the lever for a different Dem.

So what you're saying is, a large swath of independents would rather help Donald Trump by not voting than vote for Joe Biden?

I mean, OK.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
9 minutes ago, Goredho said:

Nominate a sharp moderate under the age of 65.  Done.

So Kamala should be fine then. But they keep telling us she’s not. So let’s just go around and around until all the independents agree on a candidate.

Or we could do this thing we already did, you know, voting.

Posted
20 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Democrats lose presidential elections because our constitutional method for choosing a chief executive is dumb as fuck.

the Electoral College certainly helped Carter handily defeat Ford despite only getting about 1.5mm more popular votes.  Kennedy beat Nixon by almost 100 EC votes, despite winning the popular vote by about 100k.  Truman used the EC by over 100 votes despite beating Dewey in the popular by less than 2mm votes.  EC worked out well for Wilson over Hughes despite only winning the popular by 500k.  Democrat Cleveland wins the EC handily despite just a 300k popular vote margin.  Cleveland also runs away with the EC in 1884 despite winning the popular by just 20,000 votes.  

the EC has benefited the Democratic Party more often than most people realize.  Yes, it's a bigger issue now, but it has helped your party many times over history.  They knew there'd be states leaning one way or the other on a reliable basis.  They, perhaps naively, built the mechanism to make any newly on-boarded states feel validated.  We were agrarian and merchant based at the time.  But even until Carter/Ford, the system more or less worked.  They knew there'd be more states, different parties, and left open a system to amend it all after Article VII.  

To your point now though is...what they didn't anticipate nor could they have.  It's what's wrong now with the EC/PV setup.  They didn't realize the concept of so many people living in cities and suburbs.  Their prize mistake-a lack of imagination.  It's helped both parties over the years, other parties as well (Whigs, I'm looking at you).  We are just organized and spread out differently now.  There are truly red states thru and thru like Wyoming and North Dakota.  There are truly blue states thru and thru like Oregon and Rhode Island.  Most of us live, even if our neighbors don't know it...in an America without demarcation of borders...rather Urban/Suburban-College versus Rural/Suburban-Non College.  When we accept that along with demographic shifts (aging and color), and adjust accordingly...everything changes for a century.  But we don't get to 2032 until we figure this shit out first.  All else is commentary. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, DixonHur said:

 

I'd prefer Trump lose, but if he wins, I'll be fine.

So will I. But you don't see me running around acting like a spoiled child.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
8 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Didn't realize the electorate outside of the 2-party system was not allowed to have opinions.

Your party can choose whomever they want, but that doesn't mean I can't suggest an alternative, or that I am beholden to vote for your choice.

Put another way, what % of registered Dems would you estimate are voting FOR Biden, and not AGAINST Trump?

IE would the Dems not vote for a Dem other than Biden?  

I can assure you a lot more independents would be happy to pull the lever for a different Dem.

But you’ve told us they won’t pull the lever for the only other Dem that is an option. So should we ignore you or just keep going down the list?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, YGIFS said:

the Electoral College certainly helped Carter handily defeat Ford despite only getting about 1.5mm more popular votes.  Kennedy beat Nixon by almost 100 EC votes, despite winning the popular vote by about 100k.  Truman used the EC by over 100 votes despite beating Dewey in the popular by less than 2mm votes.  EC worked out well for Wilson over Hughes despite only winning the popular by 500k.  Democrat Cleveland wins the EC handily despite just a 300k popular vote margin.  Cleveland also runs away with the EC in 1884 despite winning the popular by just 20,000 votes.  

the EC has benefited the Democratic Party more often than most people realize.  Yes, it's a bigger issue now, but it has helped your party many times over history.  They knew there'd be states leaning one way or the other on a reliable basis.  They, perhaps naively, built the mechanism to make any newly on-boarded states feel validated.  We were agrarian and merchant based at the time.  But even until Carter/Ford, the system more or less worked.  They knew there'd be more states, different parties, and left open a system to amend it all after Article VII.  

To your point now though is...what they didn't anticipate nor could they have.  It's what's wrong now with the EC/PV setup.  They didn't realize the concept of so many people living in cities and suburbs.  Their prize mistake-a lack of imagination.  It's helped both parties over the years, other parties as well (Whigs, I'm looking at you).  We are just organized and spread out differently now.  There are truly red states thru and thru like Wyoming and North Dakota.  There are truly blue states thru and thru like Oregon and Rhode Island.  Most of us live, even if our neighbors don't know it...in an America without demarcation of borders...rather Urban/Suburban-College versus Rural/Suburban-Non College.  When we accept that along with demographic shifts (aging and color), and adjust accordingly...everything changes for a century.  But we don't get to 2032 until we figure this shit out first.  All else is commentary. 

It's stupid and should be scrapped at soon as possible.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, YGIFS said:

the Electoral College certainly helped Carter handily defeat Ford despite only getting about 1.5mm more popular votes.  Kennedy beat Nixon by almost 100 EC votes, despite winning the popular vote by about 100k.  Truman used the EC by over 100 votes despite beating Dewey in the popular by less than 2mm votes.  EC worked out well for Wilson over Hughes despite only winning the popular by 500k.  Democrat Cleveland wins the EC handily despite just a 300k popular vote margin.  Cleveland also runs away with the EC in 1884 despite winning the popular by just 20,000 votes.  

the EC has benefited the Democratic Party more often than most people realize.  Yes, it's a bigger issue now, but it has helped your party many times over history.  They knew there'd be states leaning one way or the other on a reliable basis.  They, perhaps naively, built the mechanism to make any newly on-boarded states feel validated.  We were agrarian and merchant based at the time.  But even until Carter/Ford, the system more or less worked.  They knew there'd be more states, different parties, and left open a system to amend it all after Article VII.  

To your point now though is...what they didn't anticipate nor could they have.  It's what's wrong now with the EC/PV setup.  They didn't realize the concept of so many people living in cities and suburbs.  Their prize mistake-a lack of imagination.  It's helped both parties over the years, other parties as well (Whigs, I'm looking at you).  We are just organized and spread out differently now.  There are truly red states thru and thru like Wyoming and North Dakota.  There are truly blue states thru and thru like Oregon and Rhode Island.  Most of us live, even if our neighbors don't know it...in an America without demarcation of borders...rather Urban/Suburban-College versus Rural/Suburban-Non College.  When we accept that along with demographic shifts (aging and color), and adjust accordingly...everything changes for a century.  But we don't get to 2032 until we figure this shit out first.  All else is commentary. 

You just listed a bunch of people that won the popular vote and the EC. Not sure how that matters at all to what @David Dennison said.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

This thread is pretty pointless now.  Everyone's regurgitating the same takes, myself included.  Nobody's mind is being changed, and no one here has any real insight or pull to influence what the Democratic party does.  Its not even a debate about what the best course of action is anymore.  It's about having a refuge so as to maintain morale and having reinforcement that everything is on track.  If ya'll need that, who am I to deny it?

My only hope is that the people that do have insight and influence are acting accordingly and making the best decisions.  That they seem pretty non committal and divided on Joe's future does not instill confidence in me that things are under control and going according to plan.  That also aligns with what I've personally witnessed from Biden at the debate and yesterday.

But hey, by all means, keep the faith.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I almost forgot why I had you on ignore but now I remember how you made up a bunch of right wing BS and claimed it was part of the official Dem platform. You’ve been a right wing troll for a long time 

This is the type of shit that has us in the position we are all in. Those of us who saw video footage of Biden over the years and spoke up about his troubling missteps were smeared as right wing trolls in the news. The videos of Biden looking old and frail were all dismissed as right wing propaganda when it was a legitimate concern. It was reminiscent of Trump calling everything “fake news” because it was not to be discussed when it was what we all should have been talking about before primary season. That debate hit us like a ton of bricks to the reality of what was really going on with Biden. I feel stupid for thinking his poor health was just a right wing talking point and not a valid concern. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, hobbes2702 said:

You just listed a bunch of people that won the popular vote and the EC. Not sure how that matters at all to what @David Dennison said.

I was merely pointing out that there have been very narrow popular vote victories by Democrats in the last century+, but that vote margin was far different than the differential in the Electoral College.  The tacit point is a 1% margin in the PV versus a 30% difference in the EC vote margin illuminates a lot more than just "the EC is dumb because Hillary didn't win!"  The system needs to be addressed yes, perhaps the Maine/Nebraska model.  Who knows?  We only know what it would take to amend it in terms of Congressional votes and State Legislatures.  And that is simply not happening in the next 8 years.  I don't make the rules.  

Like the Ned Beatty speech in "Network" or the premise of a borderless world in "Rollerball."  The EC, and it's amendable flexibility, was put into place to onboard new states and give them agency.  That's all.  It wasn't rigged 250 years ago to keep evil Republicans into the Oval.  But once we shed the concept of a state, and accept the dynamic of urban/college-suburban v. rural/non college-suburban...then some real change on elections can occur.  I don't know if some of you have noticed, but the 2025/hard right plan is to do just that---shed the concept of a state having value and agency.  All of it falling it under a Dictatorial Swamp Bag of Shit.  Why not try a page of their playbook?    

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
44 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

2) Levin has no business “telling” the president to step aside. He won the votes. Period.

I don't know why not, Levin's a voter and we don't elect Kings in this country.  Levin is perfectly entitled to express his position and isn't obligated beyond that. 

Some of ya'll that are purported Trump opponents are leaning into very antidemocratic positions.  Very pot calling kettle...

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

The EC, and it's amendable flexibility, was put into place to onboard new states and give them agency.  That's all.  It wasn't rigged 250 years ago to keep evil Republicans into the Oval.  But once we shed the concept of a state, and accept the dynamic of urban/college-suburban v. rural/non college-suburban...then some real change on elections can occur.  I don't know if some of you have noticed, but the 2025/hard right plan is to do just that---shed the concept of a state having value and agency.  All of it falling it under a Dictatorial Swamp Bag of Shit.  Why not try a page of their playbook?    

GIF by Robert E Blackmon

Posted
3 minutes ago, MrBig said:

This is the type of shit that has us in the position we are all in. Those of us who saw video footage of Biden over the years and spoke up about his troubling missteps were smeared as right wing trolls in the news. The videos of Biden looking old and frail were all dismissed as right wing propaganda when it was a legitimate concern. It was reminiscent of Trump calling everything “fake news” because it was not to be discussed when it was what we all should have been talking about before primary season. That debate hit us like a ton of bricks to the reality of what was really going on with Biden. I feel stupid for thinking his poor health was just a right wing talking point and not a valid concern. 

Get a fucking grip. If you actually watched the debate or any public appearances after you wouldn’t post this. The reality of what’s going on with Biden is he’s old. He’s not senile, he’s not gonna die tomorrow. It’s the exact same reality it was in 2020 with less hair.

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

I don't know why not, Levin's a voter and we don't elect Kings in this country.  Levin is perfectly entitled to express his position and isn't obligated beyond that. 

Some of ya'll that are purported Trump opponents are leaning into very antidemocratic positions.  Very pot calling kettle...

we don’t have kings. People vote. And people voted already. Levin is telling Biden to ignore the voters.

The antidemocratic position is taking the choice away from the voters who have selected their nominee for president.

Edited by hobbes2702
Posted
1 minute ago, hobbes2702 said:

we don’t have kings. People vote. And people voted already. Levin is telling Biden to ignore the voters.

The antidemocratic position is taking the choice away from the voters.

bUt InDePeNdEnTs DoN't GeT tO vOtE iN tHe PrImArIeS!

  • Haha 2
Posted
1 hour ago, CTC2 said:

I don’t disagree but the prevailing thought that Biden is losing his mind and Trump is somehow cognitively healthy is more what I was pointing out.  

Because Trump is teflon as a cult leader and this country can't think critically. I agree there's a definite difference, anyone who doesn't is being willfully ignorant or just has forgotten Trump, but above all the focus needs to be on holding the White House.

Posted
21 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

 

The former is a political party, however flawed it might be.

The latter is a group of cons doing whatever it takes to get elected, so that they can become famous and profit, and in some cases stay out of prison.

Hope this clears it up.

Perhaps, I wasn't clear.  The question was in terms of telling people who they had to vote for.  Independents aren't a party, so we don't get to choose the nominees.  Meaning we either vote R, D, or stay home.  

For me, the GQP is hopeless, so voting R is not an option, and Dems are basically telling independents to support a candidate they don't like or shut the fuck up.  Which is their right.  But some of us don't think Biden can win and are putting forth other options, within the Dem party, that we think would have a better chance to beat Trump by motivating independents.

And we're greeted by people like @Js1 and @hobbes2702, who are basically telling us we suck, we're trolls, or that there's no such thing as an independent.  Which is their right but make no mistake, the Dems need independents more than independents need them.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
40 minutes ago, Loch Ness Monster said:

Let's name all the Presidents that have won re-election with a 37% approval rating or lower in modern history.

Whoever said it's never happened in modern history was correct. Clearly a lot of people want some new blood.

Posted
2 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Get a fucking grip. If you actually watched the debate or any public appearances after you wouldn’t post this. The reality of what’s going on with Biden is he’s old. He’s not senile, he’s not gonna die tomorrow. It’s the exact same reality it was in 2020 with less hair.

This is exactly correct.  Also, everyone posting polls needs to realize its fucking July.  Not saying Biden is who I prefer as president but let's see what the next 4 months bring when Trump starts talking again and more of what the Republican party wants to do if Trump wins starts getting more news coverage.  Many independents may vote for a decrepit Biden in November if the Dems start running ads with kids in cages, being taken from their parents and just say, "if you want this evil shit again then vote for Trump".   Start running ads that state if you are a woman and vote for Trump you will end up with a world just like the Handmaids Tale".  Trump continuing to do stupid, crazy shit and the Dems running some scary ads in swing states could easily change the polling.  Are the Dems smart enough to run this playbook?  That I am not sure, and I have full confidence they will fuck it up.  

The other choice is Biden should just offer anyone that votes for him in MI, PA, WI, AZ, NV and Georgia $10K cash if he wins.  He does have immunity from any consequences from doing that, right?  May as well flat-out bribe people for their votes and get the win. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, DixonHur said:

Perhaps, I wasn't clear.  The question was in terms of telling people who they had to vote for.  Independents aren't a party, so we don't get to choose the nominees.  Meaning we either vote R, D, or stay home.  

For me, the GQP is hopeless, so voting R is not an option, and Dems are basically telling independents to support a candidate they don't like or shut the fuck up.  Which is their right.  But some of us don't think Biden can win and are putting forth other options, within the Dem party, that we think would have a better chance to beat Trump by motivating independents.

And we're greeted by people like @Js1 and @hobbes2702, who are basically telling us we suck, we're trolls, or that there's no such thing as an independent.  Which is their right but make no mistake, the Dems need independents more than independents need them.

You do suck.
You literally gave us a “we’ll fascism won’t effect me so who cares right”. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
31 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

So what you're saying is, a large swath of independents would rather help Donald Trump by not voting than vote for Joe Biden?

I mean, OK.

Sort of.  I think a large part of the electorate has his the "fuck it, I don't care anymore" stage of grief.

Posted
40 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I have so much more empathy and respect for weirdo undecided voters who don't pay attention to politics and just vote on complete vibes every four years at best than I do for "independents" who vote in every election, 95% of the time for Republicans, and openly tell us they don't care about something unless they think it will directly affect them. Even aside from them being assholes, the latter are just much much dumber fucking people.  

You're a middle-aged conservative white guy so how is Project 2025 going to hurt you? Oh, I dunno, how was the average German affected by the nazi rise to power? Do you think things were generally pretty good for the folks in Dachau who studiously ignored the fucking concentration camp in their back yard? Or do you think the nazi insanity and incompetence got their sons killed in a war before they themselves starved to death or had their house bombed by a foreign military? 

Try naming a country, anywhere and at any time in human history, that was run by a dictatorship in which things were or are actually pretty good for most of its people. I'll wait.

Singapore is a modern example I would say where the dictator they have is what most of their people want. 
 

I know they have very harsh laws, and would not want that here, but their people seem very happy. Especially the majority. 
 

unless I fell to fake news again. Which I have many times. 

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

You do suck.
You literally gave us a “we’ll fascism won’t effect me so who cares right”. 

I care, but if you don't want my vote, that's your choice.  

My point is we don't have as much to lose as many Dem voters, so cast us aside at your own risk.  

Edited by DixonHur
Posted
12 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

we don’t have kings. People vote. And people voted already. Levin is telling Biden to ignore the voters.

The antidemocratic position is taking the choice away from the voters who have selected their nominee for president.

People have voted for a nominee is fundamentally impaired relative to who he was six months ago.  Let's exaggerate your position a little bit--you think the Dems should run the same ticket if Biden was diagnosed with Alzheimer's today, just because they had a primary election that concluded a month ago?

I'm not suggesting we try to run the country by polls, but the VOTERS are saying "hey, that vote we cast?  We'd like to take it back."  To ignore that is a great way to lose the election. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, DixonHur said:

I care, but if you don't want my vote, that's your choice.  

My point is I don't have as much to lose as many Dem voters, so cast us aside at your own risk.  

IMG_8464.gif.c7bece3bc5ddd913ebd1798fa1922d8d.gif

Posted
17 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I still wish Joe would pass the torch, but I have to admit I like his attitude. 

image.thumb.png.f83e68e9361f2825708fbdcf4fe6f19d.png

Please let this be real. I want that! 

Posted
2 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

People have voted for a nominee is fundamentally impaired relative to who he was six months ago.  Let's exaggerate your position a little bit--you think the Dems should run the same ticket if Biden was diagnosed with Alzheimer's today, just because they had a primary election that concluded a month ago?

I'm not suggesting we try to run the country by polls, but the VOTERS are saying "hey, that vote we cast?  We'd like to take it back."  To ignore that is a great way to lose the election. 

No they haven’t. Just because you only started paying attention for 15 mins during the debate doesn’t make him impaired.

He doesn’t have Alzheimer’s so it’s irrelevant. He’s not mentally unfit so that’s a terrible example.

Levin can say what he thinks, but his position supports taking the vote away from the voters. That is the very definition of anti democratic 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

People have voted for a nominee is fundamentally impaired relative to who he was six months ago.  Let's exaggerate your position a little bit--you think the Dems should run the same ticket if Biden was diagnosed with Alzheimer's today, just because they had a primary election that concluded a month ago?

I'm not suggesting we try to run the country by polls, but the VOTERS are saying "hey, that vote we cast?  We'd like to take it back."  To ignore that is a great way to lose the election. 

The fact that some are pretending the Dems had a real primary in the first place is laughable.

Quick, name another candidate from the Dem primaries?  

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted (edited)

Marianne Williamson. She and the others got 14 million less votes than Joe Biden combined. 
Just because you don’t know who else ran doesn’t mean they didn’t run.

Edited by hobbes2702
Posted
1 minute ago, hobbes2702 said:

No they haven’t. Just because you only started paying attention for 15 mins during the debate doesn’t make him impaired.

He doesn’t have Alzheimer’s so it’s irrelevant. He’s not mentally unfit so that’s a terrible example.

Levin can say what he thinks, but his position supports taking the vote away from the voters. That is the very definition of anti democratic 

This is your opinion, and you're welcome to it, but we wouldn't be hearing leaks from insiders if there wasn't concern within the party.

You guys are the ones talking about how important this election is, yet you're ok running a clearly impaired Joe Biden when people within and without the party are raising the alarm.  

Interesting strategy that I give about a 5% chance of succeeding.  I think Kamala raises it to 15% and Whitmer 25%.

Posted
35 minutes ago, Goredho said:

This thread is pretty pointless now.  Everyone's regurgitating the same takes, myself included.  Nobody's mind is being changed, and no one here has any real insight or pull to influence what the Democratic party does.  Its not even a debate about what the best course of action is anymore.  It's about having a refuge so as to maintain morale and having reinforcement that everything is on track.  If ya'll need that, who am I to deny it?

My only hope is that the people that do have insight and influence are acting accordingly and making the best decisions.  That they seem pretty non committal and divided on Joe's future does not instill confidence in me that things are under control and going according to plan.  That also aligns with what I've personally witnessed from Biden at the debate and yesterday.

But hey, by all means, keep the faith.

In like two weeks people will have been conditioned to just know that Biden is old as fuck. You guys seem to think that social media and the two second attention span of the average person only benefits conservatives.

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

This is your opinion, and you're welcome to it, but we wouldn't be hearing leaks from insiders if there wasn't concern within the party.

You guys are the ones talking about how important this election is, yet you're ok running a clearly impaired Joe Biden when people within and without the party are raising the alarm.  

Interesting strategy that I give about a 5% chance of succeeding.  I think Kamala raises it to 15% and Whitmer 25%.

You keep saying clearly impaired. Either you haven’t paid attention or you’re lying. Hes been old, he hasn’t been impaired unless you use those two words interchangeably.


And here we go again, you want your specific preferred candidate because fascism isnt that big of a deal for you.

Edited by hobbes2702
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Perhaps, I wasn't clear.  The question was in terms of telling people who they had to vote for.  Independents aren't a party, so we don't get to choose the nominees.  Meaning we either vote R, D, or stay home.  

For me, the GQP is hopeless, so voting R is not an option, and Dems are basically telling independents to support a candidate they don't like or shut the fuck up.  Which is their right.  But some of us don't think Biden can win and are putting forth other options, within the Dem party, that we think would have a better chance to beat Trump by motivating independents.

And we're greeted by people like @Js1 and @hobbes2702, who are basically telling us we suck, we're trolls, or that there's no such thing as an independent.  Which is their right but make no mistake, the Dems need independents more than independents need them.

You have four years of results from both individuals right now to base your decision on for both the Presidency and future makeup of Supreme Court and you think it’s more important to get your dick sucked as an “independent” who hasn’t voted for a Republican in 20 years.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
3 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Marianne Williamson. She and the others got 14 million less votes than Joe Biden combined. 
Just because you don’t know who else ran doesn’t mean they didn’t run.

No that's an LOL.

Yep, you proved me wrong.  Marianne Williamson, the author who's never held public office, totally had a legit opportunity to unseat Joe.

  • Haha 1
Posted
Just now, DixonHur said:

No that's an LOL.

Yep, you proved me wrong.  Marianne Williamson, the author who's never held public office, totally had a legit opportunity to unseat Joe.

It’s almost like Democratic voters wanted the guy who they voted for as President to run again or something. Weird.

Its very cute that you think there’s someone who had a legit opportunity to unseat the sitting president. 

1 minute ago, StassneyHorn said:

You have four years of results from both individuals right now to base your decision on for both the Presidency and future makeup of Supreme Court and you think it’s more important to get your dick sucked as an “independent” who hasn’t voted for a Republican in 20 years.

Is it still getting your dick sucked if it’s self fellatio. At some point that’s more like giving head than receiving I bet.

Posted
21 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Get a fucking grip. If you actually watched the debate or any public appearances after you wouldn’t post this. The reality of what’s going on with Biden is he’s old. He’s not senile, he’s not gonna die tomorrow. It’s the exact same reality it was in 2020 with less hair.

I never said Biden was senile. You are conflating my concerns about his age with some MAGA asshole who is calling Biden senile. This does a great disservice to anyone who has an opinion about Biden’s age because it brands them as being disloyal to the party and against the pursuit of preserving democracy for questioning Biden’s age. We all saw what we saw at the debate and some people in the Democratic Party have finally decided to do something even if it pisses off hardline Biden loyalists. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, StassneyHorn said:

You have four years of results from both individuals right now to base your decision on for both the Presidency and future makeup of Supreme Court and you think it’s more important to get your dick sucked as an “independent” who hasn’t voted for a Republican in 20 years.

Nope.  Already stated I'm voting Dem, but I live in Texas.

My concern comes from conversations with friends in swing states, and polling showing independents are not enthusiastic about voting for Biden.  Period.

As a Texas voter, I ultimately have no say in the matter.  My preference for Whitmer is as much electoral geography as anything else.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Anyway, off to drink bourbon at Still Austin. 

I'll be wearing a tee for the band Michigander if anyone wants to meet up to discuss further over a bourbon.  I'll buy the first round.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
11 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Nope.  Already stated I'm voting Dem, but I live in Texas.

My concern comes from conversations with friends in swing states, and polling showing independents are not enthusiastic about voting for Biden.  Period.

As a Texas voter, I ultimately have no say in the matter.  My preference for Whitmer is as much electoral geography as anything else.

Texas is one of the ten closest states and will be decided by less than 5 points.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, StassneyHorn said:

Texas is one of the ten closest states and will be decided by less than 5 points.

Good thing all those independents are serious people. We might actually flip this bitch…

Posted
26 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Marianne Williamson. She and the others got 14 million less votes than Joe Biden combined. 
Just because you don’t know who else ran doesn’t mean they didn’t run.

C'mon man. There was no real primary contest. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Anyway, off to drink bourbon at Still Austin. 

I'll be wearing a tee for the band Michigander if anyone wants to meet up to discuss further over a bourbon.  I'll buy the first round.

Wish I didn't have to solo dad. 

  • Hook 'Em 2


×
×
  • Create New...