2019 Presidential Me Too!!



  • @zBrown

    Okay, I saw this post as big money in context of upcoming Presidential election. I did not make the connection between weed growers. Obviously the marijuana industry is crazy big money these days. Would be interesting to know which, if any, candidates are willing to accept donations from such since not only big corp donor but also the "druggie" issue.

    I thought it might be best as a stand alone thread but feel free to continue here. Can always fork it later to a dedicated thread. Its a mixed bag trying to find a middle ground. Some like fast and loose while others become frustrated with the seemingly randomness of it all. At least that seems to be a sentiment expressed by a few folks I know who were on ST early on but bailed in later years. Hoping to pull some of them back into the fold.

    Edit: 6/28, This reply is out of context here post tidying up but perhaps still relevant to campaign funding so I shall let 'er ride for now.



  • An interesting bit from Politico relating to the deluge of wannabee candidates (read those who have less than a snowball's chance in hell of being viable) siphoning resources from the larger task at hand - defeating Trump. My take is that the majority of such candidates' missions are primarily motivated by fame and glory bullshit stories. Exposure and "brand recognition" they can then parlay into other purposes (e.g. running for Governor, Mayor, Chief Dog Catcher, whatever...). And of course, even more importantly the unused funds now ripe for fraudulent abuse.



  • Hey! Any interest in political chat over here?

    Things are pretty quiet over at the Salad. Surprising, given last night's Democratic debate.



  • @apogee said in 2019 Democratic Presidential Primary:

    Hey! Any interest in political chat over here?

    Things are pretty quiet over at the Salad. Surprising, given last night's Democratic debate.

    That's what kinda happens when you kill off all the talent.



  • @apogee

    Given the format, I was less than optimistic about any real debate. Suspected it would amount to little more than 60/30s "control the message" click bait sound bites. Like, uhh... "where's the beef?" kind of deal, eh? Worth watching? How about some analysis since you seem to have watched them? Going on again tonight for the second half of the field as well, no?



  • Well Apogee, if you want to liven up the debate here, why not invite Lois and Craig? That'll have the post count into the hundreds by this time tomorrow...

    ...sorry. Bad joke.

    I always felt that if only a small handful of unthinking supporters of whatever party or ideology were banned from ST, the political discussions would flower. Maybe there's a chance that can happen here.

    I hope so.



  • 'the talent'

    I laugh robustly!



  • @apogee

    We could not but help laugh robustly as well. Did not watch them but evidently they provided much fodder for the late night talk show hosts' roasts. Not to mention laughing stock of the rest of the civilized world.

    I mean, really, how is anyone supposed to address even simple, much less complex issues in such a format? Oh snap! Hmm... perhaps the networks' objective: satire material and click bait for the late night talk shows? A ruthlessly proficient in the war for eyeballs type of deal?

    Or have we really become so short on attention that we got to break even presidential debates down to sixty second sound bites? That.. uhh... wait fer' it... totally bites!

    Or perhaps apathy? Lost all faith in "the system"? Surely not everyone is as jaded as I?

    I kind expected the debates to warrant at least some actual..... debate.... Or is such raising the bar too high for present day voters?



  • In the hope that this forum can host political discussion that is something more than "You're wrong." "No, you're wrong." "Well, you're an asshole." "No, you're the asshole." "Then Fuck You!" "No, Fuck You!!!" I'll start.

    First though, a disclaimer. This site is open to anyone in the world, but the reality is that the politics discussed here will be American politics, and I am not an American.

    Maybe neither of those things is a problem. Most of you are American, and so your own politics is what is important to you. And American politics has some importance to the rest of the world. As to me being an outsider, well, I spent the last 20 years in the US, so I hope my thoughts will be both US-informed, but not US-blindered.

    With those caveats, here's a starting thought: The real political problem in the US is the two-party system.

    Americans love to make fun of European countries and Canada for having dozens of political parties. The standard criticism is that with so many parties arguing about everything under the sun in parliament in Italy (or France or Spain or Germany or Canada or...) the government is paralyzed and can't get anything done.

    But here are a couple of thoughts to start you thinking and talking:

    First, regarding the paralysis, who is pot and who is kettle? You want to talk about paralysis? Look no further than Washington DC. A two-party system is no guarantee of good governance.

    Second, how is it possible to believe that there is only one right way to think about everything? Maybe you are "a conservative" or "a liberal" but does that mean that every single thing that is important to you is fully represented by one single party? And that the only other party is wrong about everything? Get real.

    Third, if Western Europe and Canada are so messed up, why aren't their citizens all clamoring to move to the US? Anyone who has lived in both the US and any of those countries knows that the commonly held US view that everywhere else is horrible is total fantasy. If the Guatemalans desperate to escape the horrors they face at home had a choice of moving to the US or to Sweden (or France or Canada or,,,) do you really think the US would be their first choice?

    Multi-party democracy can be messy and frustrating, but it is a far better way to give citizens a better life.

    Your thoughts?



  • Indeed, the two party system is a huge part of the problem. Although, if there were 3, or 4, or 8 different parties, no doubt we would still be making a lesser-evil choice. The current two party system is so overly-simplified, it results in a binary choice where the candidate of the Party that most closely reflects one's beliefs and values becomes your only real choice, esp. when the other Party's choice is soooooo undesirable (which was easily said about Trump or Clinton in 2016).

    I'd like to see a major shift in the political system like that, but I'm not going to hold my breath.


Log in to reply