Don't people understand primaries?

Remove all ads!

I've been hearing lots of talk about people hating that the 2024 election is Trump vs Biden version 2.0 like it is already determined.
Then they rant about how either Trump or Biden shouldn't be running or shouldn't be on the ballot for whatever reasons.
Most of the primaries haven't happened yet.
If they feel that strongly about it, why don't they suggest alternatives? There are other candidates in the primary for both Republicans and Democrats. Most primary elections have not yet been held, and their entire purpose is to decide which candidates will run for office in November. If you don't like the choice of Trump or
Biden, pick somebody else in the primary and vote for them in
November. It's that simple. Refusing to vote for somebody else because
they "have no chance of winning" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

So why is everybody acting like it is already determined that it is going to be Trump vs Biden 2.0?

 

Sounds like my Taylor Swift Bowl (which I named 2 weeks ago) If I had some decent cash you would have bet my 49's to lose It's all fixed! Suffer the masses

 

The problem with that logic is that in most countries (including the US afaik) those votes are then "wasted". That's less of an issue in the primaries, where you're just selecting the party candidate, but it's a big issue when it comes to the actual election, where stray votes or non-voters can result in an undesirable party winning. Not that it matters much until you get rid of your dumb electoral college system.

Australia, for example, has a preferential voting system, where you mark the candidates in order of your preference and, if your preferred candidate doesn't end up in the running, your vote still counts for the next candidate. I think that's a rather elegant approach. It still doesn't change the whole popularity contest problem, but it allows people to freely express their preferences.

 

The problem with that thinking is that not voting for a candidate because you think it would be a "wasted" vote, makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy that said candidate has no chance of winning. There is a good chance that if enough people voted for their preferred candidate, he might win, but the media steering them to their preferred candidate manipulates them into voting for somebody else.

 

Maybe, maybe not. The problem is that "IF". People don't like uncertainty and the system doesn't allow for them to take any risks.

There are some really interesting parties in our little country, but I know for a fact that they have no chance of winning because the vast majority of people are stupid don't share my mindset. The best I can hope for is that they get enough votes to get a percentage of the political funding (since that's how it works here) and that they might be able to do something with that money. Unfortunately, if I give my vote to them, I also risk skewing the results in favor of parties that I don't like at all (since there's no preferential voting here), and that's just not something we can afford as our right-wingers are about as bad as the ones in the US.

 

"I can only surmise that low-information voters simply want to be on the winning side."

So why is Trump still heading the republicans in the polls? Don't republicans see that supporting a literal criminal and rapist who's using republican donations to fund his legal troubles, is like asking to lose the election. That loser doesn't even have full republican support because the smart ones know he's corrupt.

I don't get why republicans are crying about sexual abuse and paedophiles when Trump was literally CONVICTED of sexual abuse. The only reason they didn't use the word rape was because he digitally raped her. Then he went on to mock her and get a much bigger fine. Not only is he a vile pig but he's stupider than a lemming. WHY IS HE EVEN STILL IN THE PRIMARIES?

 

Which I cannot understand. Why would anyone want a hypocritical liar in office? One that thinks the rules are for lessor people/subordinates, not for him? He's exactly the type of Authority I hate.

Then again, I live in the suburbs of Chicago and the Democratic political machine is still strong in Chicago, so it probably affects the local media.
I haven't watched the news on TV in a while, but I do read the Daily Herald and although I'm thinking of canceling it I read a bit of the Sunday Chicago Tribune.

I'm thinking of canceling it because they don't have the coupons they used to have in the last year or so, and the paper is half the size it used to be and I also get the 'Herald. The coupons used to pay for the cost of the paper in savings on stuff I needed to buy anyways so it justified subscribing.

 

Name calling is subjective. The fact is, a jury found Trump liable for defamation and sexual abuse against Carroll. He lost the following case because Trumps only tool is defamation, and he couldn't keep his stupid mouth shut. When you call E Jean Carroll a "lunatic" you are just name-calling and that's a poor excuse for a logical debate. Rape is rape. How would you feel if your daughter/niece/wife/mother was digitally raped by someone so rich that they could lie to billions of people who believed their every word? How do you think your daughter/niece/wife/mother would react? They would probably hide it and suffer a lifetime of psychological pain for it. You call the woman who had the guts to go up against Trump after he did sexually violate her, "a lunatic" . I'd call her a hero.

I do have respect for the fact that despite being a republican, you did not vote for him in the primaries.

 

This is getting good

 

I don't understand what you are saying, can you please explain this?

 

She said most people think rape is sexy, she didn't say she does. Her point was that rape victims have an uphill battle when it comes to peoples attitudes. You misinterpreting that one phrase from an interview shows you have a lack of critical thinking. She is a hero. She's representing all women who have to deal with men who would rather sweep rape under the rug that acknowledge it and make a positive change for the future. Why don't you look critically at the abuser, rather than the victim? You have a problem with her saying that, but you don't have a problem with, "Grab 'em by the pussy?" You never answered my question about how you would feel if it happened to your mother/daughter/sister/ niece. Sound's like you would sweep it under the rug.

 

She's not a crazy person. Either you are gullible and believe the slander you've decided is true, or you know you are intentionally spreading lies for the benefit of your political beliefs/ religion. You have not presented any argument, you've just slandered a raped woman. As well, you've completely demonstrated how trump supporters don't believe legitimate legal actions against their cult leader. You say you're not one of them but you sure act like them.

 

The problem is that a lot of people like Trump will pick targets that nobody will believe or write off as crazy or are otherwise sure they won't have any consequences for doing it. At least for general harassment, I don't have any experience with rape or "rape culture" on either end side, although I heard about one in college where a girl got drunk at a party, came on to a classmate and slept with him, only to say in the morning he should have realized she was too drunk to consent because that's the only way she would have slept with him. I don't think any charges were filed, mostly because people DID see her coming on to him, but she did cry "rape".
So whose to say she isn't both right and crazy? That tRump wasn't inappropriate to her, but she actually was a bit nuts and he thought he could get away with it because of that?