I don’t understand how anyone thinks an 81 year old person should be leader of a nation. And will they ever produce good stuff instead of what they’ve been trying and failing to do for so many years and it hurts the people.
When will they help the citizens instead of funding the military and fancy projects that waste money, cutting taxes for billionaires and raising them for the poor, cut social security, cut medicare, cut this, cut that, more money to the military.
So messed up.
I don’t know good places to find accurate news.
Considering we have a two party system, game theory implies we will vote between the 81 year old guy who has some idea of what he is doing and the 77 year old guy who maybe just finally after seven years figured out how to start a fascist regime.
If we could somehow change the status quo, I’m not even certain who the “good candidates” would be. Warren is 74 and Sanders is 82.
Our media, gerrymandering and attention spans have led to a place where everyone who is famous and wants the job are criminally nuts.
Yeah I think I’ll stick with Biden until Harris and Newsom are ready to fight about who is next.
What does this mean? You can’t just trust one need source. It starts with learning about political science and history. And learning more and more. And then reading multiple new sources. That’s the only way you’ll get context. Being engaged and having the background information.
There are a lot of popular Democratic governors who have had legislative success in their states over the past several years. They’re going to be the ones that have the best chance at a nomination in 2028. If Biden is re elected President and gets a Democratic Congress he’ll probably be able to do things that will make those governors even more popular.
If Trump is President I don’t think we have to worry about elections again.
Oh, and if Biden wins next year I think the Republican Party will go into full meltdown mode for the next several years, which will be an opportunity for the Democratic Party to flourish.
Provided congress doesn’t do it’s usual “Whoopsie! We managed to find exactly enough votes to block this!” routine that they’ve been doing since at least 2009.
Yes. This isn’t about who is best. This is about maximizing chance for survival.
If a project just isn’t working, scrap it and start over.
And my comment about news was a request for good sources.
So I’m not in disagreement with you that it’s clear the project has at some point gone off the rails, and it might sound easier to just wipe the slate clean and start over. But there is no way that happens without a revolution or civil war either preceding of following that attempt, and that won’t even guarantee we get something good.
We’re in an extremely tight spot. Things must change drastically and quickly to avoid catastrophe but unless we’re really really careful we’ll end up in a somehow worse situation than even currently
OK, are you starting the revolution? Or waiting for someone else.
I’ll point out that amendments to the constitution will never me made positively and peacefully while states with their land vote more than people.
“Starting over” a country tends to result in a lot violence and bloodshed and quite often makes things worse.
The fact of the matter is that, for many many people, dealing with a somewhat shitty status quo is a much more attractive option than taking a gamble that a revolution doesn’t result in catastrophe, and you can’t really say they’re wrong for that.
Scrap what doesn’t work and keep what does.
It doesn’t have to be all or nothing. And it doesn’t have to be violent.
I mean, good luck with the tension between D and R, but companies can form and grow successful without blood or death (**there are some…).
Using the creation and growth of a company as my analogy is meant to remind that peolle work together all the time without bloodshed* to create great things.
Government could be that way if people cooperated and listened to each other.