- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Six Reasons Why Tulsi Gabbard Is Donald Trump's Best Choice As A Running Mate
Posted on 5/6/24 at 4:18 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Posted on 5/6/24 at 4:18 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
So what is your suggestion or proposal here?
You don't deal in reality, so what is your fantasy?
Our population is mind-blowingly stupid, but that is not the root cause of the two-party system. FPTP elections and single-member constituencies are. Third parties on a broad level result in vote splitting that hands power to minority-support parties, since the third parties naturally tend toward one side or the other. Tactical voting all but eliminates third parties over time. Its the opposite of stupid in that sense---its pragmatism. People would rather elect candidates that they agree with 80% of the time over those candidates they agree with 20% of the time.
You don't deal in reality, so what is your fantasy?
Our population is mind-blowingly stupid, but that is not the root cause of the two-party system. FPTP elections and single-member constituencies are. Third parties on a broad level result in vote splitting that hands power to minority-support parties, since the third parties naturally tend toward one side or the other. Tactical voting all but eliminates third parties over time. Its the opposite of stupid in that sense---its pragmatism. People would rather elect candidates that they agree with 80% of the time over those candidates they agree with 20% of the time.
This post was edited on 5/6/24 at 4:21 pm
1
Posted on 5/6/24 at 4:35 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
You don't deal in reality
You keep saying this, but it's boring. I've never once said that it won't be Biden or Trump, assuming Biden isn't replaced before November. That's entirely irrelevant to my point.
My solution is that people should vote for those who best represent them. "People are stupid" doesn't refute that point.
quote:
FPTP elections and single-member constituencies are. Third parties on a broad level result in vote splitting that hands power to minority-support parties, since the third parties naturally tend toward one side or the other. Tactical voting all but eliminates third parties over time. Its the opposite of stupid in that sense---its pragmatism. People would rather elect candidates that they agree with 80% of the time over those candidates they agree with 20% of the time.
It's 2024. You can vote for literally anyone, and we don't have the limitations we had 200+ years ago.
Posted on 5/6/24 at 4:37 pm to cajunangelle
I miss my very good doggo so much 
Just can't give a dog the life it deserves with current travel / job
Just can't give a dog the life it deserves with current travel / job
This post was edited on 5/6/24 at 4:38 pm
Posted on 5/6/24 at 4:41 pm to SirWinston
quote:
common sense populism
Posted on 5/6/24 at 4:42 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
You can vote for literally anyone, and we don't have the limitations we had 200+ years ago.
The factors driving two party representation are exactly the same as 200 years ago, and exactly the same as they exist in practically all similar voting systems worldwide.
quote:
My solution is that people should vote for those who best represent them. "People are stupid" doesn't refute that point.
Tactical voting isn’t stupid.
I’d be the first person to support adding an element of proportional representation or multi-member districts to our system. But the fact is that we don’t have it, and third parties are not viable until that happens. They quite literally have no sustainable path to election.
This post was edited on 5/6/24 at 4:47 pm
Posted on 5/6/24 at 4:43 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Gabbard brings even less. She won't get any actual Democrats to the ticket, and her voting record will get blasted repeatedly and keep many actual conservatives, which still make up a large portion of the party, home.
Probably why she is an option.
Posted on 5/6/24 at 4:55 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
The factors driving two party representation are exactly the same as 200 years ago, and exactly the same as they exist in practically all similar voting systems worldwide.
Sure, but not the limitations in overcoming those factors...
quote:
Tactical voting isn’t stupid.
Tribalism is stupid, especially tribalism for the sake of tribalism.
Posted on 5/6/24 at 4:58 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Six Reasons Why Tulsi Gabbard Is Donald Trump's Best Choice As A Running Mate
I only need one reason to not vote for her.
She's a lifelong, avowed and staunch socialist.
No.
I like that she hates the MIC. I like that she stood up to Hillary and didn't fear the Arkancide machine. I like her rack and that tan. But I don't buy for even one second her newly minted "2A-tolerant" stance that is diametrically opposite of the position she previously held her whole life until this year, and I'll never forget that she stood on that stage with 20 other candidates and raised her hand in support of more taxes on the middle class to pay for more entitlements for the jobless.
She can GTH.
The dim establishment and Uniparty have already turned their back on her anyway, so she won't be causing any Democrats to vote for Trump if she's on the ticket. FFS Tim Scott isn't much better than a RINO and a token candidate, but I'd take him over Tulsi any day because he's at least been consistent. (Full disclosure, I really like Tim as a person, and decently as a politician, but I don't think he's the best choice on a short list of candidates for VP).
Tulsi as a VP selection possibility sounds like a wish casting wet dream for progs. I'll just wait and see what Orange says and does. Full disclosure 2: for all the nocks against Tulsi, I'd pick her over Nimrata any day, if it were between just the two.
Hoo boy, struck a nerve with a couple of Tulsi/Haley bots, I see. Exemplary.
This post was edited on 5/7/24 at 12:16 pm
Posted on 5/6/24 at 5:02 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Sure, but not the limitations in overcoming those factors...
Go on re: these limitations
Eta: example
Let’s say a single member FPTP district has a 60% conservative population vs 40% progressive. However, the conservative portion is split between two parties that roughly average 30% support, but both conservative parties and their supporters agree that the liberal party is worse than their conservative counterpart. Are you saying that tactical voting between the conservative parties is stupid in that instance?
Or should the constituency just elect the liberal party forever?
This post was edited on 5/6/24 at 5:06 pm
Posted on 5/6/24 at 5:06 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Go on re: these limitations
Exposure, for starters.
Posted on 5/6/24 at 5:06 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
See my edit, but exposure has nothing to do with the two party dichotomy in any event. Electability does.
This post was edited on 5/6/24 at 5:08 pm
Posted on 5/6/24 at 5:08 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
exposure has nothing to do with the two party dichotomy
Nonsense.
Posted on 5/6/24 at 5:14 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Nonsense
Then explain. Exposure does nothing at all to combat vote splitting. Let’s say everyone is fully exposed.
Respond to my example
This post was edited on 5/6/24 at 5:15 pm
Posted on 5/6/24 at 5:21 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Then explain.
Explain why reaching a larger percentage of the population makes it easier to be elected?
Posted on 5/6/24 at 5:25 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Explain why reaching a larger percentage of the population makes it easier to be elected?
No, explain how third parities are a viable option in examples such as the one I posted. Or, I guess, explain how losing elections to minority parties is somehow the thing to do.
This post was edited on 5/6/24 at 5:27 pm
Posted on 5/6/24 at 5:29 pm to OMLandshark
quote:Trump's choice will have an inside track to the 2028 nomination.
Six Reasons Why Tulsi Gabbard Is Donald Trump's Best Choice As A Running Mate
He is not going to get credit for selecting a woman, or a Black, or disabled, or any other checkbox.
He needs to select the person he'd like to succeed him and continue his legacy. DeSantis would be high on that list if it weren't for the same state EC problem. Same for Rubio.
I'd love for him to go with Rand.
Posted on 5/6/24 at 5:30 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Trump's choice will have an inside track to the 2028 nomination.
If Trump wins in 2024, a love child of Ronald Reagan, James Madison, and Ron Paul wouldn’t win in 2028.
Anyone taking the 2024 VP slot on that basis is a fool.
This post was edited on 5/6/24 at 5:32 pm
Posted on 5/6/24 at 5:36 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
I'd love for him to go with Rand.
Rand is more value where he is in the Senate than being the Vice President. The only role Rand should leave for is if he’s offered Secretary of State, and he’d be a great choice there.
Posted on 5/6/24 at 5:38 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
No, explain how third parities are a viable option in examples such as the one I posted. Or, I guess, explain how losing elections to minority parties is somehow the thing to do.
"People are stupid" isn't a meaningful argument to me.
Posted on 5/6/24 at 5:39 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Trump's choice will have an inside track to the 2028 nomination.
I totally disagree. Trump is so polarizing that I think whoever he picks will be radioactive after this run.
Page 12 of 16
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News