2024 Presidential Debate 2 Electric Boogaloo

It is how the constitution works, tho. This country was not founded to be like other countries.

Rickroll, FWIW, this is also how I and probably everyone else read what the master baiter wrote.

Ok, great... I have no issue w/ you owning muskets to protect yourself.

weird how you ignored all the commonly available sources for an ai chatbot

You seem a little all over the place in your response, so I'm not really sure how to respond myself.

I don't disagree w/ some of the things you're saying. And I do get it. I was a teenager once, and I was filled w/ hopium. It can be frustrating that people aren't tackling what are obvious big issues. It can feel deflating.

Instead of getting defeatist about it, and equating both sides and saying they are both equally bad, or voting 3rd party, you instead start at the local level and work w/ people who want these same changes. You build a network up from there. That's how movements are built. It does no good to throw your vote away though, or to stomp your feet that things aren't getting done fast enough.

You seem passionate about a lot of these issues. Have you gotten involved in any organizations and got your boots on the ground?

Not sure what you're implying. I just asked the question:

Also, I previously posted all of her positions and the fact she sued CA over offshore fracking. She's clearly stated her position.

But, let's say she is indeed in favor of banning all fracking, and she lied. What does that mean for you? Why are you spending so much energy on this and falsely equating both sides? Is it to give you comfort in your protest vote?

You don't need anyone's permissions in here. You're allowed to throw away your vote if that makes you "feel good" somehow. It's a free country still... at least for now. Maybe Stein can play spoiler in a state or two, and we can all see how far Trump will take his next coup attempt.

Wouldn't that be fun Rick?

wild that the person arguing to vote for the lesser evil - which is exact mantra that perpetuates this system and allows it to exist doesn't understand that is the person who is defeatist and has given up

it is the defeatist who is served two turd sandwiches and decides which one is going to taste better instead of leaving the restaurant

Yes Rick, it's wild that I accept reality and understand that w/o a mass awakening by A LOT of people, voting 3rd party historically in America is throwing your vote away, and often playing spoiler. Have you ever talked the average American about politics before? Spoiler: They don't really know much. But somehow you expect a bunch of them to suddenly be informed and stop supporting the broken 2 party system?

I'm an adult, and I do adult things. I don't complain and stomp my feet because things aren't the way I wish they were. I instead, lace up my shoes and actually get involved to create the change I want. I volunteer on progressive campaigns that implement local level changes in my community. I donate money to causes that are forward-thinking. I sit on boards and help w/ grant writing. What do you do?

What I don't do is help outright fascist get elected. That's what you're doing when you vote 3rd party right now. You're literally whining that people don't see that Trump = Kamala, so it doesn't matter which you vote for... they're both the same. You're complaining that we're all so dumb because we can't see it... but clearly you're the smart one Rick.

I don't think it is.

If you don't vote, instead of voting for the lesser evil, you just give more power to choose among the 2 options to the fewer people who keep voting, things don't change and you just either get the lesser evil or the bigger evil anyway.

It's not like restaurants because you don't have 300+ countries like yours to choose from (expecially not at the federal level) + the option to cook at home yourself.

Yes when things are terrible enough you can leave, and some people do, but similar problems of choice aggregation exist in many countries. I read identical things even in Italy, even if elect a portion of members of parliament with proportional voting.

Brasil has a multitude of parties , but at the end only one person can be president, and it ends up being a choice between 2 options anyway in the second round. Same in France.

You can't "leave the restaurant". Either Macron or Le Pen is going to be president. You either give your preference to what you think is the lesser evil among them, or you don't and give more power to the people who do.

And even if very few people go and decide, the elected person has full powers anyway (and fewer people to keep happy to keep that power).

The system in the USA, Brazil, France and so on perpetuates because it's resilient. It's built through constitutional norms, to generate that effect. Only extreme social events leading to extreme radical change can hope to change that, and not even a civil war managed to change that for the USA too much.

Even with a "mass awakening", which third party would be so much better than republicans or democrats, without becoming like them once in power for enough time, like it literally happens all the times everywhere? at least you have primaries that can actually matter a lot

nobody ever said she was in favor of banning all fracking

she very publicly was in favor of some forms of banning and campaigned on that platform - instead of just saying "yes she's changed her position" you're trying to toss out a bunch of ai generated word salad to explain and justify it

nobody is asking for justification or explanation - they are just stating what happened

it really feels like you're all too happy to excuse and explain away even stuff that doesn't require excusing or explanation

fracking without a doubt has caused severe harm to a lot of communities, there's many legitimate reasons to be against fracking

this documentary exposed a lot of terrible things done by fracking and the public sentiment was strongly against it for a very long time

it would have historically made a lot of sense for a democrat to publicly campaign against fracking

since then, there's been a lot of advancements in fracking where it's now much safer and does far less environmental damage - so it's very reasonable for someone to have a position against it that they've since pivoted upon

so there's no shame in saying "yes I once advocated against fracking"

this is like you had a regular diet in college and then 10 years later you meet up with some old friends and you are now vegan and someone says "oh when did you decide to become vegan?" and a normal response would answer the question with "oh i started 3 years ago" perhaps they'd even add some backstory like "i read eating animals and it changed my perspective" or "it was a a tough adjustment at first, especially with kids but after a few months we didn't miss dairy or meat at all and we've learned all these new amazing ways to cook vegetables - the problem wasn't that vegetables were bad, it's that we didn't know how to cook them"

an unhinged person would respond with "what are you talking about? i may have eaten meat and dairy but always thought hot pockets were disgusting so it's not like i wasn't always kind of vegan and I haven't changed my diet at all" - this is what you are doing

lol that video is age restricted, let's try this one

I watched that doc several years ago.

You didn't answer my questions.

This isn't complicated, Rick. Let's try again. This is what Trump said:

"Harris will never allow fracking in Pennsylvania. If she won the election, fracking in Pennsylvania will end on day one."

And this was her response:

"I have not banned fracking as vice president of the United States. And, in fact, I was the tie-breaking vote on the Inflation Reduction Act, which opened new leases for fracking."

Is this true or false. Which person lied?

trump lied because the president doesn't have the power to stop fracking in pennsylvania

however, what he based it on was her very clear prior stance of banning fracking

kamala also lied by omission, she wasn't the deciding vote on a bill to support fracking, she was the deciding vote on a bill that is 725 pages long and doesn't even mention fracking by name - it was also a democrat proposed bill so we very likely was just doing what she was told anyway - zero chance a vp has any genuine autonomy in that situation despite that they are the ones to physically cast the vote - or to better state it, had she not voted in support of it, there's zero chance she'd be handed the pres nom as she'd instead find herself treated like sinema - it would have been back when the 2nd place person became the VP but not since

nor does the wikipedia entry on that bill mention fracking a single time

so she's not lying outright, but she's stealing unearned credentials and leaving out that she campaigned against it

so both are lying

trump is lying far more, there's zero doubt about that

she could have said "in the past I did campaign against fracking on public lands but my position has changed on that, furthermore, the president does not hold the authority to stop fracking in private lands anyway"

but she didn't

so brave of you to make an alt account to accuse me of being a secret trump supporter for a 2nd time

I just love america bruhski and want a return to the good ole days

since gpt is the new established thread arbiter

Ok... you got close enough. Props.

Yup... that's accurate.

Not sure if you were trying to make a point or something.

Seems like it would stay exactly the same. Did not vote already beats every candidate in every election. Only one that was even close was Biden vs DNV in 2020. I still think he would have lost but maybe he barely won.

if a large enough cohort of the electorate were willing to vote outside the 2 parties then we'd see a snowball effect legitimizing 3rd parties and their candidates - they'd have far more traction and votes if not for the "you're throwing away your vote" mentality which wouldn't be the case if it reached critical mass

the real problem is, once a 3rd party gained power, would they then work to dismantle the 2 party duopoly or instead try to maintain it since they have now replaced one of the parties - in the past they've maintained it

this

I get the third party thing and normally I would be perfectly OK with it.

But this year is different. One of the candidates wants nothing more than to make sure that you never vote again if he wins.

Then you really won't have a choice.

Originally Posted by ecriture d'adulte
Seems like it would stay exactly the same. Did not vote already beats every candidate in every election. Only one that was even close was Biden vs DNV in 2020. I still think he would have lost but maybe he barely won.'

No... this is terrible reasoning bro. I guess I need to explain why... it's because you are voting. The NV category doesn't fkn matter. It's an irrelvant data point.

Do we have an administration that lies us into an Iraq War if Nader doesn't play spoiler in Florida 2000? Probably not. Those are the real life consequences 3rd party spoilers play.