Dear Black America

Black folks,

Let’s talk for a second. If you know like I know, there are practically no definitive gains for us in the two-party system of American politics. But if you also know like I know, there’s a distinction between the party that wants no parts of us and the party that wants our unrelenting loyalty in exchange for a little tenderness.

Our vote has always been caught in a lover’s quarrel. We are trying to find true love in a nation soiled by the blood of our ancestors and a nation that pushes us to decide between a party that personifies an abusive, wrecking ball of a lover or one that sweet talks/gaslights us with empty promises.

Before I go any further, I want to say something with full transparency: I am not a proponent of two-party system politics. I believe it to be stifling for Black Americans and leaves us in a perpetual state of “lesser evil” political options. Life itself is nuanced and very rarely offering anyone the opportunity to choose between one of two options about anything. But we are expected to adhere to an either/or dichotomy when deciding this country’s leadership.

Let me be additionally clear in saying that I do not believe it is in any of our best interests to vote for Donald Trump to be re-elected as president or for us to cast Republican votes down the ballot. The Republican Party under Trump’s leadership has veered far beyond textbook conservatism. He has emboldened a level of supremacy that is a direct threat to our personhood, has not produced deliverables on promises made to us, insulted us time and again, endangered the public health of the entire country by mishandling the pandemic and has generally been an abhorrent example of leadership and humanity in general.

He is the leader of the violently abusive lover party.

The conundrum for us is that Joe Biden is the nominee for the “baby, I promise I’ll do better”/gaslighting lover party. The party that sends Black America bouquets of wilted flowers and expired chocolates. Establishment Democrats expect Black folks to show up as our finest selves at the polls on their behalf. They expect our advocacy, time, loyalty, love and our hearts. And it is the heart part we need to reconsider when being courted by them.

We need to update the rules of engagement of this “situationship,” because the Democrats want to feign affection for us when it makes their poll numbers favorable while treating us like an annoying side piece after we love them into office. So, I propose that if we vote for Dems, we do so from the perspective of voting for our “friends with benefits,” not our potential soul mates.

We need to engage in the type of entanglements that gives us the satisfaction we desire. We do not to be doe-eyed and willfully hand them the keys to our mind, body and soul. They need to recognize that we have other options, even if the structure of the binary says otherwise. And then we need to work like hell on building other viable options.

If they are to constantly “get some” from us while not having to commit to a mutually exclusive, sustainable relationship then we should be comfortable with having our needs met with no (heart) strings attached. We do not need to be hearing wedding bells every time election season comes around. We need to be in a casual yet reciprocal friendship with them while awaiting a truer, more pure political partner.

Until then, let’s stay “single” Black folks. The heartbreak the two-party system gives us is way too damaging to continue looking for love in all the wrong places.


https://www.thenorthstar.com/dear-black-america-let-the-democratic-party-be-your-friends-with-benefits-not-your-soul-mate/?fbclid=IwAR22TLJeN2zGgheb0OaUYI--yuRjsatUw3DC69GwuFu9qQci0clgVQE3hAc

Not a big fan of King and the Northstar, but I think it's important to pay attention to the publication owned by one of the most well known black activists in America.

“The conundrum for us is that Joe Biden is the nominee for the “baby, I promise I’ll do better”/gaslighting lover party. The party that sends Black America bouquets of wilted flowers and expired chocolates. Establishment Democrats expect Black folks to show up as our finest selves at the polls on their behalf. They expect our advocacy, time, loyalty, love and our hearts. And it is the heart part we need to reconsider when being courted by them.”


Interesting that black people feel that he’s suspect.

eddie wrote:“The conundrum for us is that Joe Biden is the nominee for the “baby, I promise I’ll do better”/gaslighting lover party. The party that sends Black America bouquets of wilted flowers and expired chocolates. Establishment Democrats expect Black folks to show up as our finest selves at the polls on their behalf. They expect our advocacy, time, loyalty, love and our hearts. And it is the heart part we need to reconsider when being courted by them.”


Interesting that black people feel that he’s suspect.

Some do. The guy that wrote this is an activist (think BLM), not you're typical run of the mill black guy from Topeka.

But there has been grumbling for years that the Dem party takes them for granted, and why not? While many blacks consider themselves conservative, they can't vote for anyone other than a Dem because of cultural pressure. It's just what they do.

They are monolithic to a great degree. More so than any other group in America, and the Democratic party exploits that.

It's a binary choice. Should be more mainstream parties in the US.

Original Quill wrote:It's a binary choice.  Should be more mainstream parties in the US.

Well the two main ones dont seem to be too keen on the idea. And they can count on the support of 95% of the voters including people like you.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:It's a binary choice.  Should be more mainstream parties in the US.

Well the two  main ones dont seem to be too keen on the idea. And they can count on the support of 95% of the voters including people like you.  

I agree. In this century, voters have become much more aware of the negative effect of the vote...or lack of vote, owing to binary choice alone.

I think it is safe to say that Trump got elected because of the negative vote toward a woman running for the top office. No one was keen on Trump; it was an adverse expression on women. George Herbert Walker Bush's defeat taught us how disrupting a third popular choice (Ross Perot) could be to the binary choice. Now the binary choice is accepted as a norm.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Well the two  main ones dont seem to be too keen on the idea. And they can count on the support of 95% of the voters including people like you.  

I agree.  In this century, voters have become much more aware of the negative effect of the vote...or lack of vote, owing to binary choice alone.

I think it is safe to say that Trump got elected because of the negative vote toward a woman running for the top office.  No one was keen on Trump; it was an adverse expression on women.  George Herbert Walker Bush's defeat taught us how disrupting a third popular choice (Ross Perot) could be to the binary choice.  Now the binary choice is accepted as a norm.

Hillary sucked as a candidate. You could have probably beaten her.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I agree.  In this century, voters have become much more aware of the negative effect of the vote...or lack of vote, owing to binary choice alone.

I think it is safe to say that Trump got elected because of the negative vote toward a woman running for the top office.  No one was keen on Trump; it was an adverse expression on women.  George Herbert Walker Bush's defeat taught us how disrupting a third popular choice (Ross Perot) could be to the binary choice.  Now the binary choice is accepted as a norm.

Hillary sucked as a candidate. You could have probably beaten her.

Any male could have.  There were so many witch hunts around Hillary, that it was clear they were fabrications. But that is a bias with the electorate, not the candidate.

Come on, Quill. I wanted Clinton to win in 2016. Before Bernie became I thing I had Clinton down as the sure fire next president from 2012. But seeing her in the debates with both Bernie and Trump and also her interviews she did at that time, she really was a demonically grinning (even when not appropriate) very entitled, very presumptions egomaniac. She never came across as a particularly nice person and lied as much as you'd expect from any career politician.

Her being a woman did not cost her the election, being a dislikable human being did.

Eilzel wrote:Come on, Quill. I wanted Clinton to win in 2016. Before Bernie became I thing I had Clinton down as the sure fire next president from 2012. But seeing her in the debates with both Bernie and Trump and also her interviews she did at that time, she really was a demonically grinning (even when not appropriate) very entitled, very presumptions egomaniac. She never came across as a particularly nice person and lied as much as you'd expect from any career politician.

Her being a woman did not cost her the election, being a dislikable human being did.

Exactly. She had high negatives from the time Bill was president. She threw women under the bus every chance she could.

If I black man with a Muslim name can be elected president, a white woman can too, assuming she's not disliked by most people in the country.

Eilzel wrote:Come on, Quill. I wanted Clinton to win in 2016. Before Bernie became I thing I had Clinton down as the sure fire next president from 2012. But seeing her in the debates with both Bernie and Trump and also her interviews she did at that time, she really was a demonically grinning (even when not appropriate) very entitled, very presumptions egomaniac. She never came across as a particularly nice person and lied as much as you'd expect from any career politician.

Her being a woman did not cost her the election, being a dislikable human being did.

Les, may I suggest you are touting the after-story...it's called reduction of cognitive dissonance.  What you saw in the debates was male pompousness playing the 'males-only-need apply' card.  Do you remember how Trump walked over and breathed down her neck?  Clinton was benign to it all; it was audaciousness overwhelming...taking advantage of cultural expectations.  It was the 'male-only' self-fulfilling prophecy.

You say: "entitled", "presumptions", "egomaniac", "not a nice person": all typical negative adjectives you would expect about a woman.  Men are expected to take and possess, to presume, to have egos, and say fook-off when someone says they are not nice people.  After all, men are strong and willful, while women are expected to be meek and "nice persons".

I don't blame you.  The average American thinks the same way.  The obstacles put in front of women are huge...and largely imperceptible.  But powerful.  Gender stereotypes are the very reason why America never will elect a woman for president.  Would you cast a woman to play Rhett Butler?

Original Quill wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Come on, Quill. I wanted Clinton to win in 2016. Before Bernie became I thing I had Clinton down as the sure fire next president from 2012. But seeing her in the debates with both Bernie and Trump and also her interviews she did at that time, she really was a demonically grinning (even when not appropriate) very entitled, very presumptions egomaniac. She never came across as a particularly nice person and lied as much as you'd expect from any career politician.

Her being a woman did not cost her the election, being a dislikable human being did.

Les, may I suggest you are touting the after-story...it's called reduction of cognitive dissonance.  What you saw in the debates was male pompousness playing the 'males-only-need apply' card.  Do you remember how Trump walked over and breathed down her neck?  Clinton was benign to it all; it was audaciousness overwhelming...taking advantage of cultural expectations.  It was the 'male-only' self-fulfilling prophecy.

You say: "entitled", "presumptions", "egomaniac", "not a nice person": all typical negative adjectives you would expect about a woman.  Men are expected to take and possess, to presume, to have egos, and say fook-off when someone says they are not nice people.  After all, men are strong and willful, while women are expected to be meek and "nice persons".

I don't blame you.  The average American thinks the same way.  The obstacles put in front of women are huge...and largely imperceptible.  But powerful.  Gender stereotypes are the very reason why America never will elect a woman for president.  Would you cast a woman to play Rhett Butler?

Quill, we've had two Tory PMs in the UK, plus Caroline Lucas leading the Greens and Nicola Sturgeon as First Minister in Scotland.

I'm a big fan of the latter two. I also really liked Warren in the Democratic Primaries!

Of Thatcher and May I could list off negative adjectives for both, but entitled and presumptuous are not among them.

Boris Johnson however is very much entitled, an egomaniac and not a very nice person.

It isn't sexism. Clinton was awful.

Eilzel wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Les, may I suggest you are touting the after-story...it's called reduction of cognitive dissonance.  What you saw in the debates was male pompousness playing the 'males-only-need apply' card.  Do you remember how Trump walked over and breathed down her neck?  Clinton was benign to it all; it was audaciousness overwhelming...taking advantage of cultural expectations.  It was the 'male-only' self-fulfilling prophecy.

You say: "entitled", "presumptions", "egomaniac", "not a nice person": all typical negative adjectives you would expect about a woman.  Men are expected to take and possess, to presume, to have egos, and say fook-off when someone says they are not nice people.  After all, men are strong and willful, while women are expected to be meek and "nice persons".

I don't blame you.  The average American thinks the same way.  The obstacles put in front of women are huge...and largely imperceptible.  But powerful.  Gender stereotypes are the very reason why America never will elect a woman for president.  Would you cast a woman to play Rhett Butler?

Quill, we've had two Tory PMs in the UK, plus Caroline Lucas leading the Greens and Nicola Sturgeon as First Minister in Scotland.

I'm a big fan of the latter two. I also really liked Warren in the Democratic Primaries!

Of Thatcher and May I could list off negative adjectives for both, but entitled and presumptuous are not among them.

Boris Johnson however is very much entitled, an egomaniac and not a very nice person.

It isn't sexism. Clinton was awful.

But you are a more aware voter.  Most have the introspection of an amoeba.  And I don't think it is open 'sexism'...or at least, we have to lighten that term.  For these are subliminal instincts or urges that the people feel...things they are raised with, and handed down from mother's tongue to child, often written even into the language.  They are more insidious because they are deeply buried.

More importantly, you don't have a direct election in the UK.  PM's are elected by fellow, more sophisticated brother- and sister-ministers.  In the US we have direct elections, permitting the biases of the electorate to flow through.  I think it will take experience with a female executive in order to acclimate the American people.

That's one reason why I'm voting for Harris.  It's my feeling that once the American people discover that a woman can be the equal to, or perhaps better than the men we have had as presidents, they will be more accepting.

Original Quill wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Quill, we've had two Tory PMs in the UK, plus Caroline Lucas leading the Greens and Nicola Sturgeon as First Minister in Scotland.

I'm a big fan of the latter two. I also really liked Warren in the Democratic Primaries!

Of Thatcher and May I could list off negative adjectives for both, but entitled and presumptuous are not among them.

Boris Johnson however is very much entitled, an egomaniac and not a very nice person.

It isn't sexism. Clinton was awful.

But you are a more aware voter.  Most have the introspection of an amoeba.  And I don't think it is open 'sexism'...or at least, we have to lighten that term.  For these are subliminal instincts or urges that the people feel...things they are raised with, and handed down from mother's tongue to child, often written even into the language.  They are more insidious because they are deeply buried.

More importantly, you don't have a direct election in the UK.  PM's are elected by fellow, more sophisticated brother- and sister-ministers.  In the US we have direct elections, permitting the biases of the electorate to flow through.  I think it will take experience with a female executive in order to acclimate the American people.

That's one reason why I'm voting for Harris.  It's my feeling that once the American people discover that a woman can be the equal to, or perhaps better than the men we have had as presidents, they will be more accepting.

So why aren't you voting for Jorgensen?

Do you have a problem with females being at the top of the ticket?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But you are a more aware voter. Most have the introspection of an amoeba. And I don't think it is open 'sexism'...or at least, we have to lighten that term. For these are subliminal instincts or urges that the people feel...things they are raised with, and handed down from mother's tongue to child, often written even into the language. They are more insidious because they are deeply buried.

More importantly, you don't have a direct election in the UK. PM's are elected by fellow, more sophisticated brother- and sister-ministers. In the US we have direct elections, permitting the biases of the electorate to flow through. I think it will take experience with a female executive in order to acclimate the American people.

That's one reason why I'm voting for Harris. It's my feeling that once the American people discover that a woman can be the equal to, or perhaps better than the men we have had as presidents, they will be more accepting.

So why aren't you voting for Jorgensen?

Do you have a problem with females being at the top of the ticket?

Not at all. I am describing a fact, not a value. America is not disposed to accepting a female executive. Through Harris, I hope to change all that.

I am not voting for Jorgensen because I do not see salvation in her libertarian message. I see disaster in it. Libertarianism is essentially a movement in the direction of anarchy and fecklessness. It seeks to limit rule and good government, leaving an open invitation for bad elements to move in and take over. It believes in the “invisible hand”—Smith, Adam, The Wealth of Nations (1776)—a metaphysical idea, very much like the old man in the sky.

This is precisely what has happened to the Republican Party: limit yourself, do nothing, and lo...a Donald Trump marches in and starts pushing everyone around. He is neither a liberal, nor a conservative...he is a demagogue. This is the direct result of feckless, do-nothing government under Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Libertarianism stagnates, and who knows what comes of stagnate waters.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So why aren't you voting for Jorgensen?

Do you have a problem with females being at the top of the ticket?

Not at all.  I am describing a fact, not a value.  America is not disposed to accepting a female executive.  Through Harris, I hope to change all that.

I am not voting for Jorgensen because I do not see salvation in her libertarian message.  I see disaster in it.  Libertarianism is essentially a movement in the direction of anarchy and fecklessness.  It seeks to limit rule and good government, leaving an open invitation for bad elements to move in and take over.  It believes in the “invisible hand”—Smith, Adam, The Wealth of Nations (1776)—a metaphysical idea, very much like the old man in the sky.

This is precisely what has happened to the Republican Party: limit yourself, do nothing, and lo...a Donald Trump marches in and starts pushing everyone around.  He is neither a liberal, nor a conservative...he is a demagogue.  This is the direct result of feckless, do-nothing government under Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.  Libertarianism stagnates, and who knows what comes of stagnate waters.

You're a sexist. Plain and simple.

That explains your poor relations with women, especially those close to you.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Not at all.  I am describing a fact, not a value.  America is not disposed to accepting a female executive.  Through Harris, I hope to change all that.

I am not voting for Jorgensen because I do not see salvation in her libertarian message.  I see disaster in it.  Libertarianism is essentially a movement in the direction of anarchy and fecklessness.  It seeks to limit rule and good government, leaving an open invitation for bad elements to move in and take over.  It believes in the “invisible hand”—Smith, Adam, The Wealth of Nations (1776)—a metaphysical idea, very much like the old man in the sky.

This is precisely what has happened to the Republican Party: limit yourself, do nothing, and lo...a Donald Trump marches in and starts pushing everyone around.  He is neither a liberal, nor a conservative...he is a demagogue.  This is the direct result of feckless, do-nothing government under Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.  Libertarianism stagnates, and who knows what comes of stagnate waters.

You're a sexist. Plain and simple.  

That explains your poor relations with women, especially those close to you.  

Nonsense.  I recognize the problem.  I don't subscribe to it.

In this pandemic year, do the pulmonary specialists who are working on a cure/vaccine for Covid-19, subscribe to the effects of Covid-19 just because they recognize the problems?  You're being silly and sophomoric.

In order to combat a negative, you must first understand it.  Then you find, and introduce the positive...or cure.  That is my position in the fight against gender bias in politics.

Sophomoric, Quill, I can't find my Dictionary !!!!!

Haha...lov ya, nick.

Oxford Dictionary wrote:soph·o·mor·ic
/ˌsäf(ə)ˈmôrik/

adjective

relating to or characteristic of a sophomore.
"my sophomoric years"
pretentious or juvenile.
"sophomoric double entendres"

Definitions from Oxford Languages

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You're a sexist. Plain and simple.  

That explains your poor relations with women, especially those close to you.  

Nonsense.  I recognize the problem.  I don't subscribe to it.

In this pandemic year, do the pulmonary specialists who are working on a cure/vaccine for Covid-19, subscribe to the effects of Covid-19 just because they recognize the problems?  You're being silly and sophomoric.

In order to combat a negative, you must first understand it.  Then you find, and introduce the positive...or cure.  That is my position in the fight against gender bias in politics.

Nah. The only reason people don't vote for a woman is because they are sexist. That's why Hillary lost.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Nonsense.  I recognize the problem.  I don't subscribe to it.

In this pandemic year, do the pulmonary specialists who are working on a cure/vaccine for Covid-19, subscribe to the effects of Covid-19 just because they recognize the problems?  You're being silly and sophomoric.

In order to combat a negative, you must first understand it.  Then you find, and introduce the positive...or cure.  That is my position in the fight against gender bias in politics.

Nah. The only reason people don't vote for a woman is because they are sexist. That's why Hillary lost.  

I agree. America is a sexist nation, and will never willingly vote in a woman. The only hope is that a woman gets in by succession.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Nah. The only reason people don't vote for a woman is because they are sexist. That's why Hillary lost.  

I agree.  America is a sexist nation, and will never willingly vote in a woman.  The only hope is that a woman gets in by succession.

And you're a sexist American.

Quill, you are aware Hilary beat Trump by 3 million votes? Technichally your 'sexist country' already voted for a woman. Even a terrible one. Your broken electoral system just screwed her out of the presidency.

Eilzel wrote:Quill, you are aware Hilary beat Trump by 3 million votes? Technichally your 'sexist country' already voted for a woman. Even a terrible one. Your broken electoral system just screwed her out of the presidency.

The system will punish a candidate that ignores certain areas of the country, or certain groups. I like it. Hillary ignored a historically key component of the Dem party and just enough bolted in a few states to cost her the election. Biden isn't making that mistake. Biden also has the advantage of running against Trumps record as president vs Trump as an idea.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Quill, you are aware Hilary beat Trump by 3 million votes? Technichally your 'sexist country' already voted for a woman. Even a terrible one. Your broken electoral system just screwed her out of the presidency.

The system will punish a candidate that ignores certain areas of the country, or certain groups.  I like it. Hillary ignored a historically key component of the Dem party and just enough bolted in a few states to cost her the election.  Biden isn't making that mistake.  Biden also has the advantage of running against Trumps record as president vs Trump as an idea.

The system as it is ignores most people. Californians, New Yorkers and until recently Texans have been considered in the bag, along with most other states. Your system makes Floridan votes gold and pushes candidates to focus on a handful of states - hardly fair.

And this is ignoring the fact that any system that gives the win to the person with less public support is fundamentally a bad system however you spin it.

Eilzel wrote:Quill, you are aware Hilary beat Trump by 3 million votes? Technichally your 'sexist country' already voted for a woman. Even a terrible one. Your broken electoral system just screwed her out of the presidency.

Yes. But electoral results of the presidential race are filtered through the electoral college. The electoral college favors the right. It's in the algorithm: male or female, a liberal candidate must surpass the EC bias in order to win. By winning a plurality of 3-million votes over the RW candidate, Hillary in fact failed by ordinary standards. Why? America does not elect a female president.

Look at the bigger picture: how many women have even run for president?

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Quill, you are aware Hilary beat Trump by 3 million votes? Technichally your 'sexist country' already voted for a woman. Even a terrible one. Your broken electoral system just screwed her out of the presidency.

The system will punish a candidate that ignores certain areas of the country, or certain groups.  I like it. Hillary ignored a historically key component of the Dem party and just enough bolted in a few states to cost her the election.  Biden isn't making that mistake.  Biden also has the advantage of running against Trumps record as president vs Trump as an idea.

Les, the guy ^ just admitted it was sexism, and not "areas" or "groups". He can't keep his thought process straight.

Hillary ran against a bizarre, 'wacko' candidate, so she had that advantage from the beginning. Yet, she couldn't win. I repeat, America does not elect a woman for president.

But we can change that. We are in an ideal position to do that. Harris in the second spot affords the opportunity for a woman to step-up should the president be unable to continue, or should Biden elect not to run for a second term (he has said he will not). She inherits the position should Biden leave by resignation.

Either way, America will be able to witness a woman in the office. Perhaps they will get over their sexist bias once they see how well she performs.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The system will punish a candidate that ignores certain areas of the country, or certain groups.  I like it. Hillary ignored a historically key component of the Dem party and just enough bolted in a few states to cost her the election.  Biden isn't making that mistake.  Biden also has the advantage of running against Trumps record as president vs Trump as an idea.

Les, the guy ^ just admitted it was sexism, and not "areas" or "groups".  He can't keep his thought process straight.

Hillary ran against a bizarre, 'wacko' candidate, so she had that advantage from the beginning.  Yet, she couldn't win.  I repeat, America does not elect a woman for president.

But we can change that.  We are in an ideal position to do that.  Harris in the second spot affords the opportunity for a woman to step-up should the president be unable to continue, or should Biden elect not to run for a second term (he has said he will not).  She inherits the position should Biden leave by resignation.  

Either way, America will be able to witness a woman in the office.  Perhaps they will get over their sexist bias once they see how well she performs.

Nah, I called you sexist,

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The system will punish a candidate that ignores certain areas of the country, or certain groups.  I like it. Hillary ignored a historically key component of the Dem party and just enough bolted in a few states to cost her the election.  Biden isn't making that mistake.  Biden also has the advantage of running against Trumps record as president vs Trump as an idea.

The system as it is ignores most people. Californians, New Yorkers and until recently Texans have been considered in the bag, along with most other states. Your system makes Floridan votes gold and pushes candidates to focus on a handful of states - hardly fair.

And this is ignoring the fact that any system that gives the win to the person with less public support is fundamentally a bad system however you spin it.

It doesnt ignore most people, it just ignores people in states that swing pretty hard one way or another. Without the EC, different states would be ignored.  

 No doubt the EC gives the "little guy" a tiny bit more power in the election.   I'm OK with that. I'm always leery of the tyranny of the masses.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Les, the guy ^ just admitted it was sexism, and not "areas" or "groups". He can't keep his thought process straight.

Hillary ran against a bizarre, 'wacko' candidate, so she had that advantage from the beginning. Yet, she couldn't win. I repeat, America does not elect a woman for president.

But we can change that. We are in an ideal position to do that. Harris in the second spot affords the opportunity for a woman to step-up should the president be unable to continue, or should Biden elect not to run for a second term (he has said he will not). She inherits the position should Biden leave by resignation.

Either way, America will be able to witness a woman in the office. Perhaps they will get over their sexist bias once they see how well she performs.

Nah, I called you sexist,

Sorry Red, people can read for themselves. You said the American system is sexist:

Maddog wrote:The only reason people don't vote for a woman is because they are sexist. That's why Hillary lost.

Me? I am not the “people”. Lie, lie, deny, lie…you sound like Trump.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Nah, I called you sexist,  

Sorry Red, people can read for themselves.  You said the American system is sexist:

Maddog wrote:The only reason people don't vote for a woman is because they are sexist. That's why Hillary lost.

Me?  I am not the “people”.  Lie, lie, deny, lie…you sound like Trump.

Yeah, and the reason you're not voting for Jorgensen is because you're sexist.

I said that too.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Sorry Red, people can read for themselves.  You said the American system is sexist:



Me?  I am not the “people”.  Lie, lie, deny, lie…you sound like Trump.

Yeah, and the reason you're not voting for Jorgensen is because you're sexist.

I said that too.  

Equally wrong on that front. We've been through that. Jorgensen has no answers, and her platform would be a catastrophe.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yeah, and the reason you're not voting for Jorgensen is because you're sexist.

I said that too.  

Equally wrong on that front.  We've been through that.  Jorgensen has no answers, and her platform would be a catastrophe.

So not supporting a female is cool, and it doesn't make a person or a country sexist?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Equally wrong on that front.  We've been through that.  Jorgensen has no answers, and her platform would be a catastrophe.

So not supporting a female is cool, and it doesn't make a person or a country sexist?

That's your opinion.

But it still remains, we in the US have never had a female president, and only one major party has put up a woman candidate. I agree with your earlier thesis: it's sexism.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The system will punish a candidate that ignores certain areas of the country, or certain groups.  I like it. Hillary ignored a historically key component of the Dem party and just enough bolted in a few states to cost her the election.  Biden isn't making that mistake.  Biden also has the advantage of running against Trumps record as president vs Trump as an idea.

The system as it is ignores most people. Californians, New Yorkers and until recently Texans have been considered in the bag, along with most other states. Your system makes Floridan votes gold and pushes candidates to focus on a handful of states - hardly fair.

And this is ignoring the fact that any system that gives the win to the person with less public support is fundamentally a bad system however you spin it.

It doesnt ignore most people, it just ignores people in states that swing pretty hard one way or another. Without the EC, different states would be ignored.  

 No doubt the EC gives the "little guy" a tiny bit more power in the election.   I'm OK with that. I'm always leery of the tyranny of the masses.

Unless the little guy is from a safe seat. I know you aren't a Republican but I imagine you have tended toward Republicans far more than Democrats so hardly surprising you would not mind a system that overtly benefits one party over another.

What if there were no 'states' and you looked at the US as a single entity? (And why shouldn't that be the case?) As a country, you are saying the fact a Republican has become President in 2 of the last 5 elections despite losing the popular vote is totally reasonable.

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It doesnt ignore most people, it just ignores people in states that swing pretty hard one way or another. Without the EC, different states would be ignored.  

 No doubt the EC gives the "little guy" a tiny bit more power in the election.   I'm OK with that. I'm always leery of the tyranny of the masses.

Unless the little guy is from a safe seat. I know you aren't a Republican but I imagine you have tended toward Republicans far more than Democrats so hardly surprising you would not mind a system that overtly benefits one party over another.

What if there were no 'states' and you looked at the US as a single entity? (And why shouldn't that be the case?) As a country, you are saying the fact a Republican has become President in 2 of the last 5 elections despite losing the popular vote is totally reasonable.

I prefer the idea of 50 different experiments loosely held together.

The EC favors smaller states, same as the Senate. There is nothing about it that really favors Republicans except that a few of the bigger states tend to be democratic, and a few more of the less populated ones tend to be Republican. That could flip one day and I'd still be cool with making candidates win states.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It doesnt ignore most people, it just ignores people in states that swing pretty hard one way or another. Without the EC, different states would be ignored.  

 No doubt the EC gives the "little guy" a tiny bit more power in the election.   I'm OK with that. I'm always leery of the tyranny of the masses.

Unless the little guy is from a safe seat. I know you aren't a Republican but I imagine you have tended toward Republicans far more than Democrats so hardly surprising you would not mind a system that overtly benefits one party over another.

What if there were no 'states' and you looked at the US as a single entity? (And why shouldn't that be the case?) As a country, you are saying the fact a Republican has become President in 2 of the last 5 elections despite losing the popular vote is totally reasonable.

I prefer the idea of 50 different experiments loosely held together.  

The EC favors smaller states, same as the Senate.  There is nothing about it that really favors Republicans except that a few of the bigger states tend to be democratic, and a few more of the less populated ones tend to be Republican. That could flip one day and I'd still be cool with making candidates win states.

I can see why a state like California might one day decide to breakaway though if there is repeated occurrences of the country being led by a man who lost the popular vote. It is undemocratic to have the leader consistently be the person who did not gain the most votes.

If any of those 50 'experiments' decide an undemocratic system consistently undermines the majority, including the majority of their own 'experiment' it raises the cause of breaking up the biggest experiment of them all, since ultimately it starts to look like it's failing.

Fun fact -- in the last six U.S. presidential elections, Democrats have won the popular vote five times, and yet only seated two, two-term presidents.

In other words, if the president was elected by popular vote, the last five presidents would have been Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama (2 terms), George W. Bush (1 term), Al Gore, and Bill Clinton.

Or, to put it in yet other terms, in this entire millennium every president but one (Obama) has been rejected by the electorate.

Or, in the past 20 years, the U.S. has been led by a president who didn't win the popular vote for eight of them.