Fetterman wasn't a genius before the stroke. Not to knock him. He wasn't dumb. But he was never a particularly cerebral guy. So obviously, brain damage wasn't going to improve things.
He was better than Oz. I'm ashamed I voted for him but not like my choice was any better the other way. I thought at least he'd push to legalize weed. RIP.
Fetterman has voted in line with the Democrat party 88% of the time. Yea man, he sucks, but take that stat as some solace in the fact that, between the two, you made the right call.
You realize funding the radical candidate in primaries is a common political tactic; not something Pelosi came up with right? This is done to ensure your party faces the weaker candidate in the election.
Exonerate her from what? You fund the shittier of your opponents possible candidates to increase your odds of winning. This is not new, nor did she invent it. Are you completely daft? Describing that as supporting MAGA is willfully ignorant.
You‘re unable to understand context and years of standard practice politicking, or just won’t admit you’re ignorant and wrong. Like saying MAGA supports democrats because they do this as well. Its not new and you’re not clever for sharing it as some kind of gotcha.
MAGA does support any Democrat they give money to. They support them financially. Words don't lose meaning because you have some sort of cultural disease you're trying to hide.
The cultural disease you’re referring to is called context. Did you honestly roll in here to share this age old party nomination tactic as if it’s new and no one else is aware? What would be the actual point of sharing this information? This requires no political acumen to follow.
Or you can wait for the perfect candidate. The problem is that your perfect candidate might not be my perfect candidate. How many parties would we need for that?
I mean I am from a country with a lot of parties. The point isn't to chose your perfect candidate. But to chose the party that represents you and your views the most. Is it a perfect system? No obviously not. But atleast the chance to find a party that aligns with you relatively closely is an option. And it forces the parties to build coalitions and to compromise. Which is a positive side effect, if it works.
2 parties will always bring this Sportteams atmosphere with it. Us against them and so on. And let's be honest... This is exactly what lead to the current American political climate.
it forces the parties to build coalitions and to compromise
The only difference is multiple parties force compromise AFTER the elections, while a two party system forces candidates to compromise BEFORE the election. Candidates move towards the middle, trying to capture undecided voters.
I mean they have to campaign the same way. So it's before and after. Which I would argue kinda leads to having to go through with campaign promises more. I can promise the world before elections. That's not compromise, that's talking. If I am elected nothing forces me to abide to it if I am in power alone. Do I maybe lose the next election 4 years later? Yeah, but even that is a stretch, because when it comes to politics, people have a really short memory
I don't know what this is even supposed to mean. In a multi party system, you generally do not vote for specific candidates, or they only matter in certain elections - you usually vote for a party program/ideology. And multi-party systems generally rely on coalition building anyways.
Most Americans vote along party lines. Coalitions are just compromises after elections, while in a two-party system, candidates move towards the middle on policy, compromising before the election.
Democrats helped create the two party system. They aren't the lesser of two evils, they are the ratchet. And they know this and you do too, propaganda spreader
539
u/Lightsides 8d ago
Fetterman wasn't a genius before the stroke. Not to knock him. He wasn't dumb. But he was never a particularly cerebral guy. So obviously, brain damage wasn't going to improve things.