American Politics 4.0 - Orangeyou Glad He’s Back?

[Erick Estrada]

My only issue with a female democrat candidate is that they really, really, really need to win the next election and I just feel a male candidate (preferably one that's not 65+) is less risky as you want to eliminate all obstacles possible with american voters.

[Ryan Coke]

Originally Posted by Drak

LOL, "both sides."

The simpleton’s retort. The partisan lefties equivalent of “own the libs”, prime example of dumb people on both sides. No substance or thought at all.

How about the other popular brain cell killer, “be better”.

[The Yen Man]

After the mess Trump's made of America, if Dems run a woman candidate again and they still lose, at that point it will prove beyond any doubt that being a woman is indeed the main reason why a candidate can't win a presidential election.

[Drak]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

The simpleton’s retort. The partisan lefties equivalent of “own the libs”, prime example of dumb people on both sides. No substance or thought at all.

How about the other popular brain cell killer, “be better”.

I think Right wingers in today’s political climate who trot out the “both sides” tend to do so in order to justify the extremism they support and feel better about it. It doesn’t matter how far the goalposts slide. The media does it to fabricate reality.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

After the mess Trump's made of America, if Dems run a woman candidate again and they still lose, at that point it will prove beyond any doubt that being a woman is indeed the main reason why a candidate can't win a presidential election.

I don't think its ever been the main reason. But for people on the fence, I think it has been what's ultimately tipped the scales. A lot of discrimination these days is buried below the surface. Many people aren't fully aware that's it's a factor in their thinking either, because they'll attest to what's politically correct out loud, yet their actions may speak differently. That's what it looks like in the 21st century. Although the Trump crowd is making the "quiet part out loud" more commonplace again.

I do think Clinton was a ##### of her own and a poor candidate based on a number of other factors (yet in hinsight would've taken her every day of the week to kill Trump/MAGA in the cradle). Regardless, it's really unfortunate that the US can't overcome the gender hurdle when it comes to the presidency.

[GirlySports]

Is it the same excuse in Canada? A woman has never won a general election.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Is it the same excuse in Canada? A woman has never won a general election.

no, it's 'cause chicks in canada are super emotional and irrational

[Coach]

The Dems don't get it. It's not about gender or sexuality or race, or trying to guess what people want. People tell you what they want. Look at the support that comes out for Bernie and AOC. If Buttigieg or Harris put on some kind of tour like that right now, would thousands show? No chance. And I really like Pete. It's not about those individuals it's about what they're saying. It's the same message the Republicans sold. Stuff has to change in a big way, and they're right. And people want change. Say what you want about Trump, he IS changing things. In a very dark way, but in a way that is exactly to the liking of the most extreme edge of their ideology. This is precisely what he said he wanted to do, and people voted him in.

The Dems have spent a decade fighting against their own energetic side, so much so that some of them made the leap to the other end purely because they think shattering this system that's not working, in any way possible, is a positive. They're afraid if they come out with a message of universal healthcare, complete tax reform, and student debt forgiveness that the big bad Republicans and their loud-mouthed news stations will call them a bunch of names and they just can't deal with it. Instead of digging in and selling their obviously better message, they back off and let it get watered down into something like Obamacare that only works 1/4 of the way towards what it should be and they can point to it like a failure.

The lesson from Trump is to just f***ing try. Look at how hard these guys tried. For decades to reverse women's rights and make the world better for them and their rich friends. They tried so hard, cheated so much, so blatantly, and even though there's about of noisy criers, no one actually stopped it. So why couldn't it be one in the other direction? Executive order Universal Healthcare. Executive order total student forgiveness. Executive order living wages and workers benefits and maternity leave. Executive order body autonomy. Dare these idiot congress people to have to stand up in public and harp on about why an executive order to make their healthcare free is a bad thing. Make them stand there and cry about how all of a sudden not owing a bunch of money you paid back 3-fold in interest payments already is somehow an affront to their freedom. Make them defend their stupid positions.

Now in the face of the hardened resistance built up in the insanity of congress and the complicity of SCOTUS, there aren't a lot of options left but the extreme, which is why Luigi happens and will continue to happen. I personally think it can and should take the form of extreme litigation, to again make them argue their stupid points publicly. Introduce bills against masturbation and viagra. Laws that reward people for telling on their neighbours for engaging in these. Attempt to prosecute major corporations for mass murder via opioids, or unsafe work, etc.. take your pick. Defend Luigi in self-defence on behalf of citizens of the USA. File motions to not allow the President to enter your state as a convicted felon. It doesn't matter if these are defendable or not, the point is to create a spectacle around their own hypocrisy. It's exactly Trump's playbook but just aimed at making things better for people.

[The Yen Man]

The real problem with the US and it's system is, money controls everything. A lot of Dems are closer to Republicans than they are to AOC or Bernie's side. So they'd probably rather silently sit around continuing to make their millions than actually endorsing people like AOC or Bernie to not piss off their rich donors. They don't want the gravy train to stop.

At the end of the day, it's a two party system that's really just one party system with slightly different viewpoints. But instead of the government controlling corporations, it's corporations that control the government. Ironically, there's not much difference between the US and other authoritarian systems. At least with authoritarian systems, you get a bit of stability. With the US, you're athe whims of whichever billionaire groups win.

[SutterBrother]

One day, my sister Denise, roughly 4 years old, spotted older brother Paul with a candy bar.

“Where did you get that?” she asked.

“From the wall socket,” he said. “If you kiss the socket, it gives you a candy bar, just like the candy machine at the supermarket.”

More than 60 years later, my sister’s hair still hasn’t straightened. She went crying to my parents, her lips still tingling, and explained what happened.

“Well,” my father said, “if you’re stupid enough to kiss a socket …”

That family tale came to mind when I began seeing Trump supporters sobbing online about losing their jobs and a good chunk of their retirement funds in the market meltdown, and angrily storming Republican congressional town halls to demand an explanation. Their message basically is:

You were supposed to hurt those other [Black, Latino, Indian, Asian, Jewish, LGBTQ+, immigrant, liberal] people, not me; and/or
I just wanted cheaper gas and affordable eggs.

They kissed the Donald Trump socket, expecting a candy bar. Today, they’re just as shocked as Denise was.

And now, one of the moral dilemmas facing those of us who warned them this would happen is whether to root for their pain, even though it will mean collateral damage to those who opposed Trump and fought and voted for democracy and sanity.

https://www.nj.com/opinion/2025/03/a...m-opinion.html

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Trump said so many lies, so many stupid things today. But this one made me lol. He needs to be put out to pasture. His brain is fried.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1912966423879483618

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

The real problem with the US and it's system is, money controls everything. A lot of Dems are closer to Republicans than they are to AOC or Bernie's side. So they'd probably rather silently sit around continuing to make their millions than actually endorsing people like AOC or Bernie to not piss off their rich donors. They don't want the gravy train to stop.

At the end of the day, it's a two party system that's really just one party system with slightly different viewpoints. But instead of the government controlling corporations, it's corporations that control the government. Ironically, there's not much difference between the US and other authoritarian systems. At least with authoritarian systems, you get a bit of stability. With the US, you're athe whims of whichever billionaire groups win.

It's Bill Clinton's fault. He abandoned labor and made the Democrats a 2nd corporate party. It's a void that Trump has now filled. He's filled it with lies and nonsense but he's filled it with hope nonetheless. What do labor/unions have to lose?

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Is it the same excuse in Canada? A woman has never won a general election.

Except when, in recent memory, has the opportunity presented itself north of the border?

Not to say the same issue wouldn't influence results here, but there hasn't exactly been an abundance of female candidates at the federal level.

Only for parties that were never expected to be contenders to begin with.

I'd welcome that opportunity. But like with Clinton and Harris next door, they'd have to present a compelling case to win the ballots, gender aside.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

Except when, in recent memory, has the opportunity presented itself north of the border?

Not to say the same issue wouldn't influence results here, but there hasn't exactly been an abundance of female candidates at the federal level.

Only for parties that were never expected to be contenders to begin with.

I'd welcome that opportunity. But like with Clinton and Harris next door, they'd have to present a compelling case to win the ballots, gender aside.

It would have been interesting if Mark Carney didn't enter and the Liberals ran Freeland vs Pollievre right now. What would the polls look like?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

It would have been interesting if Mark Carney didn't enter and the Liberals ran Freeland vs Pollievre right now. What would the polls look like?

Personally I would prefer Joly.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

I like Joly quite a bit.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Is it the same excuse in Canada? A woman has never won a general election.

I'd say in ways, it is worse in Canada. We have never had a PM that doesn't come from the Anglo or French colonial stock and rarely have even had party leaders that didn't. There was Ignatieff a few years ago and some people did try to make a big deal of his Russian heritage and not being 100% pure old stock Canadian. And then now there is Singh of course. I don't know if his heritage would be an issue because no one really thinks the NDP has a chance anyway. I don't know his personal family history, but one could argue that Indo-Canadians are part of the old stock at least in BC where they provided many colonists to the British empire pre-confederation (not unlike Irish settlers in the Maritimes and Quebec). I recall during the Harper/Layton debates, it became a bit of a dick waving competition between them by dropping anecdotes about the length and extent of their family lineage in Canada leaving Ignatieff in the dust in that regard.

There is no question in my mind that many Canadians hold their colonial history in high regard and cling on to it as opposed to the U.S. which would rather downplay their old world connections (mostly).

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Coach

Personally I would prefer Joly.

I was hoping for Karina Gould, but I don't think the country is ready for someone that bold at the moment.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I don't know if his heritage would be an issue because no one really thinks the NDP has a chance anyway. I don't know his personal family history, but one could argue that Indo-Canadians are part of the old stock at least in BC where they provided many colonists to the British empire pre-confederation (not unlike Irish settlers in the Maritimes and Quebec).

He's not Indo-Canadian though. He's Sikh and there's a massive difference there and it's probably cost him some votes in the Punjabi and Hindi communities.

I also think Singh never had a chance in Quebec due to his background and religion.

[Coach]

I know it's a religious item, but I don't think Singh's background would be an issue if he didn't use the head wrap. Because we'd all be distracted by his clear dreamboat status.



As a bald man, I'm personally offended someone would cover such a glorious mane.