Tom Van Persie
No relation
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2012
- Messages
- 26,902
My gut feeling is it's going to be Roy Cooper or Mark Kelly.
INVESTIGATED THE FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIESIncredible
INVESTIGATED THE FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES
Threatening us all with a good time
Trump basically swapped out Joe Biden's name with Kamala, and it is quite entertaining how silly he sounds.
A few VP contenders:
Josh Shapiro - Governor of Pennsylvania
Andy Bashear - Governor of Kentucky
Pete Buttigieg - Secretary of Transportation
Tim Walz - Governor of Minnesota
Roy Cooper - Governor of North Carolina
Mark Kelly - Senator from Arizona
[/SPO
his recent stint as governor means he has easily the most progressive record:
Tim Walz seems the most trustworthy
Really wild seeing the topics Democrats are hemming and hawing over for the VP pick when this guy is the current opposition…
Or brilliant, if you are also pushing abolished abortion, limited access to birth control, and the importance of the large traditional family to a population that’s afraid that it’s being outnumbered by liberal youth and immigrants.That has to be the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard.
That has to be the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard.
He only says that because it would benefit republicans and a dig to Kamala. If it would benefit democrats he would say nothing. You might agree or not, But I don't think is a stupid idea. In the end when you vote is for the future of your kids also. The Electoral College and life time SCOTUS is up there in stupidity and they are real
Oh I know. As a political tool, even here the right wing ruling party instilled fears about minorities having more children and Hindus needing to ensure they don’t one day become a minority. But I meant purely on a logical level (which many fantasies don’t bother with).Or brilliant, if you are also pushing abolished abortion, limited access to birth control, and the importance of the large traditional family to a population that’s afraid that it’s being outnumbered by liberal youth and immigrants.
No it’s a stupid and uncivilised idea. Children aren’t of a sound and developed enough mind to vote and their parents have no right to vote on their behalf. Your one vote for “the future of your kids” is enough. The children can vote when it’s their time not before. Imagine growing up to find out your “old school” father voted on your behalf for an autocratic megalomaniac to sink the countries future. That any vote (and this would really be a child vote) to be decided not be the voter goes entirely against the fabric of a democracy.He only says that because it would benefit republicans and a dig to Kamala. If it would benefit democrats he would say nothing. You might agree or not, But I don't think is a stupid idea. In the end when you vote is for the future of your kids also. The Electoral College and life time SCOTUS is up there in stupidity and they are real
So the current attack lines are: she laughs, she may or may not be hot, she doesn't have a kid, and DEI.
GOP panic stations
How long till "Commie Kamala" makes it debut in right-wing online circles?
No it’s a stupid and uncivilised idea. Children aren’t of a sound and developed enough mind to vote and their parents have no right to vote on their behalf. Your one vote for “the future of your kids” is enough. The children can vote when it’s their time not before. Imagine growing up to find out your “old school” father voted on your behalf for an autocratic megalomaniac to sink the countries future. That any vote (and this would really be a child vote) to be decided not be the voter goes entirely against the fabric of a democracy.
I dont think its stupid that parents have a saying on the future of their kids, its just stupid that parents should, what, vote 2 times, one time themselves and 1 time for each of their kids. So who has more kids should have more voting rights?No is not. Is your opinion. If we should blame our father for voting each 4 years, imagine what you could blame for the day by day decisions that they do for you constantly. Day care, school, books, TV shows and a big fecking etcetera. But sure, an autocratic vote each 4 years is what you can through at their faces. See it how you like but parents are the influence for the future of their kids every single day and denying that it is what is really stupid
I am not saying that I would agree on this, I would need to give it a better thought, but saying stupid that parents have a saying on the future of their kids is amusing. And again, the fabric of democracy is attack in many other voting skewing and unelected powers
I dont think its stupid that parents have a saying on the future of their kids, its just stupid that parents should, what, vote 2 times, one time themselves and 1 time for their kids. So who has more kids should have more voting rights?
That's a definiton of a discrimination right there.that is precisely the discussion. Not convinced Maybe parents vs no parents. Policies are focused on the future of the country so I don't see why is stupid that who has more invested in the future shouldn't have more saying
At the same time, I believe that voting should be a right that should be earned. So yes, I like to think of alternatives because definitely, I don't think the current models works. Major "democratic" countries tends to be organized in bipartidism with some hiccups here and there
You vote for the future of your fellow citizens.He only says that because it would benefit republicans and a dig to Kamala. If it would benefit democrats he would say nothing. You might agree or not, But I don't think is a stupid idea. In the end when you vote is for the future of your kids also. The Electoral College and life time SCOTUS is up there in stupidity and they are real
which, or both?That's a definiton of a discrimination right there.
You vote for the future of your fellow citizens.
People with kids should have more than 1 voting right.which, or both?