The Democrat Utopia

Not trying to post for a fight, rather I'm genuinely curious. Since being independent I am not allowed to cast a vote on a republican primary and that angers me. On the other hand I can (in fact I'm encouraged) on the dem ticket. My question is (and NO I'm not asking to cause any discontent) how those supporting the left actually feel about the Harris ticket. I'm personally fully undecided right now. I was leaning Trump but started leaning Biden and now I'm like totally undecided and uncertain. I find I keep asking myself is it right to support an "appointed" (not elected) candidate? Please move on from my question if you only want to bash one candidate or the other. I'm totally lost... Help me to see why voting for the appointed (at least in this case) is acceptable.  

 
Idaho is a beautiful state and I'd hate to sacrifice it, but I'd be willing to let Idaho be the test case for a MAGA populated America that does not depend on federal funding, teaches the white-friendly view of history, and chooses only the pieces of the Constitution they'd like to obey. No walls required. The faithful will flock there and outsiders will be happy to stay away. There are other good options for fly-fishermen. 
 Not sure where all that came from but  go for it I guess.  Sequestering a small amount of Crazies on the right to a small specific place won’t get pushback in my book.  

 
Not trying to post for a fight, rather I'm genuinely curious. Since being independent I am not allowed to cast a vote on a republican primary and that angers me. On the other hand I can (in fact I'm encouraged) on the dem ticket. My question is (and NO I'm not asking to cause any discontent) how those supporting the left actually feel about the Harris ticket. I'm personally fully undecided right now. I was leaning Trump but started leaning Biden and now I'm like totally undecided and uncertain. I find I keep asking myself is it right to support an "appointed" (not elected) candidate? Please move on from my question if you only want to bash one candidate or the other. I'm totally lost... Help me to see why voting for the appointed (at least in this case) is acceptable.  


The Orange Man is a racist. He's friends with our enemies. He received $10 million from the Saudis. He's weaponized the government to the extent they're investigating Hunter Biden but not Ivanna's deals with China. He's promised to be a dictator on day one. He wants to send women's reproductive rights back to the 60s, if not further back. He's a convicted felon. He's an adjudicated rapist. He's in serious cognitive decline (like Biden, who stepped aside). He's the oldest candidate in history. 

I can provide links to every point. There's more.

You don't have to vote for Harris. Just vote against... all of that.

 
Not trying to post for a fight, rather I'm genuinely curious. Since being independent I am not allowed to cast a vote on a republican primary and that angers me. On the other hand I can (in fact I'm encouraged) on the dem ticket. My question is (and NO I'm not asking to cause any discontent) how those supporting the left actually feel about the Harris ticket. I'm personally fully undecided right now. I was leaning Trump but started leaning Biden and now I'm like totally undecided and uncertain. I find I keep asking myself is it right to support an "appointed" (not elected) candidate? Please move on from my question if you only want to bash one candidate or the other. I'm totally lost... Help me to see why voting for the appointed (at least in this case) is acceptable.  
I'm mainly to the left of the Dem party. Kamala is a center-right candidate that I think is basically a hollow clone of other Dem candidates, much like a great deal of the Dem party politicians. She's going to be business as usual in almost every way IMO.

However, Trump and MAGA are so insane and dangerous to democracy, I don't think the nuances between any sane candidates matters much.

 
Not trying to post for a fight, rather I'm genuinely curious. Since being independent I am not allowed to cast a vote on a republican primary and that angers me. On the other hand I can (in fact I'm encouraged) on the dem ticket. My question is (and NO I'm not asking to cause any discontent) how those supporting the left actually feel about the Harris ticket. I'm personally fully undecided right now. I was leaning Trump but started leaning Biden and now I'm like totally undecided and uncertain. I find I keep asking myself is it right to support an "appointed" (not elected) candidate? Please move on from my question if you only want to bash one candidate or the other. I'm totally lost... Help me to see why voting for the appointed (at least in this case) is acceptable.  


I think it's pretty simple. A Kamala Harris administration will pursue a path familiar to any American who lived through the last half century. For better or worse. A Donald Trump administration has declared its intention to forge a very different style of American government. For better or worse. 

Instead of bashing one candidate, let's bash both. Kamala is a flip-flopping opportunist. Donald is motivated primarily by flattery and revenge.

The flip-flopping opportunist is common in American politics, making decisions based on which way the wind is blowing. While this doesn't speak well of their personal convictions, it has a way of pushing them to the center where consensus is made. Kamala Harris is almost guaranteed to steal the Republican playbook for immigration reform and claim it for her own. Along with fellow Democrats they will lean into public education, public health, environmental issues, small business assistance, jobs creation, infrastructure, regulations, etc. They expect and will get pushback from Republicans, and end up in a compromised center common to American governance. If it goes like the other Democrat administrations it resembles, the economy will do better than it did under Republican administrations. 

While our frothiest debates revolve around culture wars, they won't be the cornerstone of Harris policy, with the notable exception of reproductive rights and Supreme Court nominations, should they arise. It may be a simplification, but the Dems are asking us to tolerate the personal lives of others, while the Republicans are leaning towards rescinding those personal freedoms. It's a weird tack for a party that likes to celebrate freedom.  

Donald Trump, the guy motivated by flattery and revenge, is a different story. It's a story unlike anything America has experienced. If I'm being generous, I'll credit him with disrupting a system that needs some disrupting. But at this point it's impossible to ignore that he's a wild card without any vision beyond his personal glory, with a blueprint to gut America's checks, balances and institutions, reduced to some of the least intelligent and qualified administrators, aides, and cabinet members because Trump values loyalty first and the sensible conservatives who once worked with him have declared him a f#&%ing idiot. And he is. His public pronouncements are stunning for their incoherence. 

The Republican Party would like to be free of Donald Trump. The Democratic Party, too. Whatever you or I might think of Kamala Harris, she is a low risk option to make that happen. 

 
I think it's pretty simple. A Kamala Harris administration will pursue a path familiar to any American who lived through the last half century. For better or worse. A Donald Trump administration has declared its intention to forge a very different style of American government. For better or worse. 

Instead of bashing one candidate, let's bash both. Kamala is a flip-flopping opportunist. Donald is motivated primarily by flattery and revenge.

The flip-flopping opportunist is common in American politics, making decisions based on which way the wind is blowing. While this doesn't speak well of their personal convictions, it has a way of pushing them to the center where consensus is made. Kamala Harris is almost guaranteed to steal the Republican playbook for immigration reform and claim it for her own. Along with fellow Democrats they will lean into public education, public health, environmental issues, small business assistance, jobs creation, infrastructure, regulations, etc. They expect and will get pushback from Republicans, and end up in a compromised center common to American governance. If it goes like the other Democrat administrations it resembles, the economy will do better than it did under Republican administrations. 

While our frothiest debates revolve around culture wars, they won't be the cornerstone of Harris policy, with the notable exception of reproductive rights and Supreme Court nominations, should they arise. It may be a simplification, but the Dems are asking us to tolerate the personal lives of others, while the Republicans are leaning towards rescinding those personal freedoms. It's a weird tack for a party that likes to celebrate freedom.  

Donald Trump, the guy motivated by flattery and revenge, is a different story. It's a story unlike anything America has experienced. If I'm being generous, I'll credit him with disrupting a system that needs some disrupting. But at this point it's impossible to ignore that he's a wild card without any vision beyond his personal glory, with a blueprint to gut America's checks, balances and institutions, reduced to some of the least intelligent and qualified administrators, aides, and cabinet members because Trump values loyalty first and the sensible conservatives who once worked with him have declared him a f#&%ing idiot. And he is. His public pronouncements are stunning for their incoherence. 

The Republican Party would like to be free of Donald Trump. The Democratic Party, too. Whatever you or I might think of Kamala Harris, she is a low risk option to make that happen. 
Thank You this is a post I can ponder on and use to constructively and ultimately make a decision. 

 
We certainly could make up that issue  if you think it would work.  However, 1) you’ve told me walls don’t work :thumbs   Or maybe now they do :dunno

2) if we are gonna do the wall thing, why not just put it around the 1/2 mile—1 mile square blocks in cities of where most crime takes place in those states?  Seems more efficient, no? 
Well, on a per capita basis cities are considerably safer than rural red states, particularly those in the Southeast.

But hey, I'm all for walling off America's cities. If we're going to keep people in, I also so we keep all that tax revenue in too. Let those rural areas tend for themselves. 

Not trying to post for a fight, rather I'm genuinely curious. Since being independent I am not allowed to cast a vote on a republican primary and that angers me. On the other hand I can (in fact I'm encouraged) on the dem ticket. My question is (and NO I'm not asking to cause any discontent) how those supporting the left actually feel about the Harris ticket. I'm personally fully undecided right now. I was leaning Trump but started leaning Biden and now I'm like totally undecided and uncertain. I find I keep asking myself is it right to support an "appointed" (not elected) candidate? Please move on from my question if you only want to bash one candidate or the other. I'm totally lost... Help me to see why voting for the appointed (at least in this case) is acceptable.  
Firstly, if you actively vote for a person how are they not elected? Secondly, Republicans are going to win the Senate. Whatever policy proposals Harris aims for on the campaign trail isn't going to happen. It'll be a boring 4 years with little legislation passed.  But you can be rest assured that defeating Trump will help return politics to a semi-normal state.

But if you like what Trump is selling and voting for an adjudicated rapist, convicted felon, treasonous career conartist who's campaign pitch is centered around how America is a wasteland of immigrants ransacking your local public park, then vote for Trump.

But let's stop pretending like it's a hard choice. If you vote for Trump it does, in fact, reflect poorly on you as a person. Yes, you should feel shame. No, you shouldn't participate in future elections because voting isn't for you. Yes, you should be subjected to mockery as a result. 

 
Not trying to post for a fight, rather I'm genuinely curious. Since being independent I am not allowed to cast a vote on a republican primary and that angers me. On the other hand I can (in fact I'm encouraged) on the dem ticket. My question is (and NO I'm not asking to cause any discontent) how those supporting the left actually feel about the Harris ticket. I'm personally fully undecided right now. I was leaning Trump but started leaning Biden and now I'm like totally undecided and uncertain. I find I keep asking myself is it right to support an "appointed" (not elected) candidate? Please move on from my question if you only want to bash one candidate or the other. I'm totally lost... Help me to see why voting for the appointed (at least in this case) is acceptable.  
Well, no way in hell would I vote for the rapist Cheeto. 
 

But, as for Harris, I think she is similar to Biden policy wise, which I’m fine with most of it. Anything I disagree with, isn’t going to destroy America. She’s younger and has more energy. I would trust her in a crisis. 
 

As for being appointed, bla…..there was nothing against the rules that they did.  It’s best for America that Biden didn’t run again. 
 

So, it’s a simple choice for me. 

 
Since being independent I am not allowed to cast a vote on a republican primary and that angers me. On the other hand I can (in fact I'm encouraged) on the dem ticket.   
Please explain as this doesn’t make sense. Not sure what state you live in but I am aware of only two situations for registered Independents and I have never heard of a situation where a person cannot vote in one parties primary but is encouraged (not sure what “encouraged” means either) to vote for the other party primary.  Are you sure you’re officially registered Independent and not as a Democrat? Cuz if not, I don’t know how or where this can be accurate.

 
Please explain as this doesn’t make sense. Not sure what state you live in but I am aware of only two situations for registered Independents and I have never heard of a situation where a person cannot vote in one parties primary but is encouraged (not sure what “encouraged” means either) to vote for the other party primary.  Are you sure you’re officially registered Independent and not as a Democrat? Cuz if not, I don’t know how or where this can be accurate.


Nebraska Republicans prohibited Independents from voting on their ballots in primaries, I think before the 2022 mid-terms. Prior to that, as an Independent, you were able to choose an Independent-Democrat ballot, or an Independent-Republican ballot, or just a ballot without either party's candidates. 

 
Nebraska Republicans prohibited Independents from voting on their ballots in primaries, I think before the 2022 mid-terms. Prior to that, as an Independent, you were able to choose an Independent-Democrat ballot, or an Independent-Republican ballot, or just a ballot without either party's candidates. 
Yeah and I think a few other states do something similar but I am not sure.  

 
Nebraska Republicans prohibited Independents from voting on their ballots in primaries, I think before the 2022 mid-terms. Prior to that, as an Independent, you were able to choose an Independent-Democrat ballot, or an Independent-Republican ballot, or just a ballot without either party's candidates. 
Thanks.

And that makes absolutely zero sense. Republicans, once again, taking their ball and going home.

But, to get this straight for the original complainer who has shown republican tendencies, he is upset at “the system” for this situation when he should be upset with the R party….that he still wants to be able to vote for. Yep, checks out.

One party wants to provide freedom and choice….the other wants you to have no choice, shut up and do exactly what they want you to do. #Gilead

 
Yeah and I think a few other states do something similar but I am not sure.  
In Colorado, unaffiliated voters get both primary ballots but can only vote one of them. Unsure what they do other places but I would bet Nebraska is not the only red state that screws with people like they do.

 
Back
Top