recogitare.com

The senate is kind of archaic, no?
Or is the problem that states vary so much in size and population?

trying to picture a new u.s. map with 50 states of equal size and population...not sure it could be done.

getting rid of the states could be interesting. one state, amurica.
might be simpler.
kids should have the vote, too, via the mother. Her investment in the country is larger than a childless person.

for that matter, if survival happens, isn't a single nation planet inevitable for any chance of a sustainable state and equal rights?

(average global per capita annual income is aprox $2,200 u.s. dollars. Says a lot about the tension. U.S. is $85,000+)

stanky wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 3:36 amtrying to picture a new u.s. map with 50 states of equal size and population...not sure it could be done.

Your wish is my command.


https://fakeisthenewreal.org/reform/

Not equal size obviously because that would be absurd.

things feel strange, like maybe this is a simulation. And the code writers are getting lazy with the names, almost slipping up.
Not sure what the convention is for. Or why Harris is a consideration. We love her like Hillary, who's name is being muttered for a re-match.

There's a cartoon-like quality to the so-called reality.

stanky wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 4:27 am things feel strange, like maybe this is a simulation. And the code writers are getting lazy with the names, almost slipping up.
Not sure what the convention is for. Or why Harris is a consideration. We love her like Hillary, who's name is being muttered for a re-match.

There's a cartoon-like quality to the so-called reality.

To paraphrase Animal House -

Stanky's right. Psychotic, but right.

There have been three candidates in my lifetime that I thought won their nominations, not because of popular support, but because it was "their turn". Those three were Walter Mondale, Bob Dole, and Hillary Clinton.*

I feel like Kamala Harris would also be one of those. I think if there had been an actual primary contest, she couldn't be the winner, even with the advantage of the pseudo-incumbency that is the Vice Presidency.

The "my turn" candidates have all lost, badly. Hillary came close, but against an incredibly weak opponent. (It's easy to forget just how weak Trump was the first time around. 11 sitting Republican senators disavowed him, and Mike Pence was way down the list of potential running mates, but no one else would take the job.)

Kamala isn't the usual variation of "my turn". She's just in the right place at the right time, and will be selected because there isn't time to do a proper vetting and choose someone Democrats can get behind, while pulling in some uncommitteds. I fear, though, that she will be selected as nominee, and I fear she will suffer the same fate as the other my turn candidates.

It cocurs to me that there might be a way to salvage the election.

If Dems run Biden, it seems like a sure loss.
If Joe steps aside, and they nominate Harris, it seem like a sure loss.
If Joe steps aside, and they nominate someone else......but who would that be? I think the usual names mentioned are all sure losses.

But.....what if Joe resigns? President Harris would have some advantages that Vice President Harris would not. Anything she does, even just talking, at least has a potential. If some newsworthy crisis comes along and she handles it in a way that impresses voters, she could go over the top.

It's a Hail Mary play, for sure.

But I don't expect it to happen, regardless. Still, it seems to me that it's either try the Hail Mary, or a dark horse wth good voter approval comes along, or Trump manages to say something so incredibly awful that more people are persuaded he is as awful as we think.

Meadmaker wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2024 4:52 pm It cocurs to me that there might be a way to salvage the election.

There is only one path to victory for the Dumbocrats, and it's blocked by an immovable object.

Michelle Obama is the only person who could step in and beat Trump.

But she won't, so Trump will march to victory.

Unless the October Surprise is Ivanka Trump coming out and accusing Don of raping their kids, replete with DNA evidence, he wins.

Admin wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2024 5:57 pm Michelle Obama is the only person who could step in and beat Trump.

Well, I must admit I can't grasp the thinking of the American electorate, even though I'm part of it, but I think Michelle O. would be a sure loser, even worse than Kamala.

She has an even bigger problem than a "my turn" candidate. As I said in Planet America, literally her only qualification is being married to somebody else. And she's seen as an annoying busybody even by people who liked her husband.


Anyway, we'll know within a few days who the options are. It will be interesting to see if any Democrat who is taken seriously steps forward to challenge Harris for the nomination.

Admin wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2024 5:57 pmThere is only one path to victory for the Dumbocrats, and it's blocked by an immovable object.

It moved.

In the new political zeitgeist, being a star of film or tv is a must. No more ugly leaders, either. Surface appeal is the whole deal. Reagan worked, somehow gaining mythical status on hype alone, brain decaying; fans too.
We've dumbed down so much that i fear the gullible and brain-dead are now a majority. propaganda is effective.
Fox News, in these parts, is the cause for Maga. Kentucky was a democrat stronghold for decades. Then rural electric. Then tv...and because of the good reception, Fox. Then, believing it, with friends and neighbors.
Trump took the county with 85%.

Possible challengers?
John Stewart/Bruce Sringsteen
Oprah/Denzel
David Letterman/Al Franken
Clooney/Pitt

no politicians! people distrust them.
sadly, i believe a pop star or an athlete could win.
Trump has shown us what's possible.
He's unappealing on every level. Everything about him is awful.
Yet, he's irrationally adored by millions.

the shit is so weird i wonder what the astrology says about it?
Or the Gypsy woman with the bones?

We must have wars. That's a bipartisan agreement. We sell weapons. We need conflict. We sell drugs. War is good for illegal drugs. We need fuel and lots of it, mostly liquid for transport and for operation in wars. Both parties will pretend to want change; neither do, but the dems whine harder about it.

the man's too big, the man's too strong.
outside factors may come for the rescue, but political parties won't.
climate and modified bacteria; volcano; comet; solar ejaculation, etc, is outside factors.

No plans are being addressed regarding the roadblocks to the future. Instead, promises of greater wealth and safety, with a token wink to cultural behavior modification: "Give a hoot! Don't Pollute!" (that sort of thing).

arthwollipot wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2024 11:49 pm

Admin wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2024 5:57 pmThere is only one path to victory for the Dumbocrats, and it's blocked by an immovable object.

It moved.

Yes and I'm very pleasantly surprised.

I think Kamala will wipe the floor with the disgusting piece of shit. I didn't think there was any way, but now it's real it feels good.