Viable Choices?

[candycorn]

The election is already rigged. What percentage of people want a viable choice of Biden v. Trump, probably not that many.

I don't mean this as a personal slight toward the person I quoted but I often see the same argument here and hear arguments like the one you've made above.

For example, here is a quote from someone named Curtis who voted in the primary in New Hampshire earlier this week:

CURTIS: I'm sorry. So once again, this is - year after year after year, you're voting against instead of for. I want to go to an election where I can vote for somebody. This was supposed to be the one. I'm getting too old for this.​

​

I would like to ask you and Curtis the following:

Who are the "viable choices" that you can't vote for? I mean...c'mon...name someone who you wish was running--lets assume they are on the primary or general election ballot if you want to just skip ahead. Who are all of these more "viable" choices that you're not being allowed to vote for?

And, before anyone goes there... I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT WRITING IN ____________. I'm talking about someone who is supposedly going to be a better President than the two real choices we have.

I agree, Trump is a shitty choice. He's a disgusting pervert. But who was better on the "R" side of the equation who didn't run? And if so...why didn't they get more votes? As for Biden, I think he's been a good president, gotten a lot of things accomplished in a very split government (Infrastructure, BBB, stimulus, got us out of Afghanistan; has stood with our allies overseas, unemployment is down, etc...) . But since I'm posting the question....who is more "viable" than Biden?

Is it just an age-thing?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

I don't mean this as a personal slight toward the person I quoted but I often see the same argument here and hear arguments like the one you've made above.

For example, here is a quote from someone named Curtis who voted in the primary in New Hampshire earlier this week:

CURTIS: I'm sorry. So once again, this is - year after year after year, you're voting against instead of for. I want to go to an election where I can vote for somebody. This was supposed to be the one. I'm getting too old for this.​

​

I would like to ask you and Curtis the following:

Who are the "viable choices" that you can't vote for? I mean...c'mon...name someone who you wish was running--lets assume they are on the primary or general election ballot if you want to just skip ahead. Who are all of these more "viable" choices that you're not being allowed to vote for?

And, before anyone goes there... I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT WRITING IN ____________. I'm talking about someone who is supposedly going to be a better President than the two real choices we have.

I agree, Trump is a shitty choice. He's a disgusting pervert. But who was better on the "R" side of the equation who didn't run? And if so...why didn't they get more votes? As for Biden, I think he's been a good president, gotten a lot of things accomplished in a very split government (Infrastructure, BBB, stimulus, got us out of Afghanistan; has stood with our allies overseas, unemployment is down, etc...) . But since I'm posting the question....who is more "viable" than Biden?

Is it just an age-thing?

Youre pitching softballs.
Haley is a much better choice for the red team. She’s a woman, she’s accomplished and with little baggag. Trump is despicable but the only Republican with the balls to stand up to him is Woman.

Almost anybody would be better than Biden for the blue team…er.. except for his Veep. Pick Newsome and he’d easily beat Trump. No sitting president has had as bad of polling numbers as Biden since Jimmy Carter in the late 70s. His border policy is a disaster which is alienating his base in sanctuary cities.

 

[theHawk]

Easy choice.

America First, or the Washington warmonger doing his best to destroy this country.

 

[theHawk]

Almost anybody would be better than Biden for the blue team…er.. except for his Veep. Pick Newsome and he’d easily beat Trump. No sitting president has had as bad of polling numbers as Biden since Jimmy Carter in the late 70s. His border policy is a disaster which is alienating his base in sanctuary cities

Any Dem would have the exact same failed policies of Biden. Amazing that lefties still can’t see that.

 

[candycorn]

Youre pitching softballs.
Haley is a much better choice for the red team. She’s a woman, she’s accomplished and with little baggag. Trump is despicable but the only Republican with the balls to stand up to him is Woman.

She's a former governor and UN ambassador. It was a small state and a position in which her job was to show up and vote on matters that most Americans never even heard of. I would say she's a better choice than the blob but isn't there someone who offers more?

Almost anybody would be better than Biden for the blue team…er.. except for his Veep. Pick Newsome and he’d easily beat Trump. No sitting president has had as bad of polling numbers as Biden since Jimmy Carter in the late 70s. His border policy is a disaster which is alienating his base in sanctuary cities.

Newsom... I get it. Large state and he has that "it" factor. But you're not really making the case other than "poll numbers". LOL

 

[BuckToothMoron]

She's a former governor and UN ambassador. It was a small state and a position in which her job was to show up and vote on matters that most Americans never even heard of. I would say she's a better choice than the blob but isn't there someone who offers more?

Newsom... I get it. Large state and he has that "it" factor. But you're not really making the case other than "poll numbers". LOL

The case is who can beat the other nominee. Haley would easily beat a very damaged Biden, and Newsome would give people amother reason to vote besides denying Trump a second term. It’s about who can win, and unfortunately either Trump or Biden will win as it stands now.

 

[candycorn]

The case is who can beat the other nominee. Haley would easily beat a very damaged Biden, and Newsome would give people amother reason to vote besides denying Trump a second term. It’s about who can win, and unfortunately either Trump or Biden will win as it stands now.

Okay...if they are viable...why aren't they winning or in Gavin's case...why isn't he running?

I would think the first thing you need in filling any job is finding someone who wants it.

Are these the only two people who "should" be the nominees of their parties???

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Who are the "viable choices" that you can't vote for? I mean...c'mon...name someone who you wish was running--lets assume they are on the primary or general election ballot if you want to just skip ahead. Who are all of these more "viable" choices that you're not being allowed to vote for?

Excellent point.

If Curtis is unhappy with who is running, he has only himself and his fellow citizens to blame.

The ‘bad choices’ are the consequence of voter apathy and willful ignorance; of uninformed, childish capriciousness that drives good candidates out of politics unwilling to subject themselves – and their families – to the moronic nonsense and insanity of running for elected office.

So, we have President Biden, career politician and institutionalist – capable and competent to be president, but dull and inspiring – an anachronism from a long-ago political past when sound, responsible governance meant consensus and compromise, where today seeking either in a partisan and divided nation is impossible, and his presidency suffers accordingly.

And we have Trump, bomb-throwing insurrectionist and thug, the product of a broken, racist, authoritarian GOP obsessed with baseless grievance and victimhood; incompetent and unfit to be president, Trump nonetheless inspires his cult of deplorables to avenge their grievances, save white America, and usher in at least four years of anti-democratic authoritarianism contrary to the will of the majority of the American people.

Indeed, no matter how much Curtis whines and complains about ‘bad choices,’ he can’t name anyone ‘better’ and is oblivious to the fact that he’s at fault for those ‘bad choices.’

 

[candycorn]

Excellent point.

If Curtis is unhappy with who is running, he has only himself and his fellow citizens to blame.

The ‘bad choices’ are the consequence of voter apathy and willful ignorance; of uninformed, childish capriciousness that drives good candidates out of politics unwilling to subject themselves – and their families – to the moronic nonsense and insanity of running for elected office.

So, we have President Biden, career politician and institutionalist – capable and competent to be president, but dull and inspiring – an anachronism from a long-ago political past when sound, responsible governance meant consensus and compromise, where today seeking either in a partisan and divided nation is impossible, and his presidency suffers accordingly.

And we have Trump, bomb-throwing insurrectionist and thug, the product of a broken, racist, authoritarian GOP obsessed with baseless grievance and victimhood; incompetent and unfit to be president, Trump nonetheless inspires his cult of deplorables to avenge their grievances, save white America, and usher in at least four years of anti-democratic authoritarianism contrary to the will of the majority of the American people.

Indeed, no matter how much Curtis whines and complains about ‘bad choices,’ he can’t name anyone ‘better’ and is oblivious to the fact that he’s at fault for those ‘bad choices.’

I can't find a lot to disagree with in your post.

What you're labeling Biden with is being a "career politician". I don't know about you but I would want the people representing me either in court or in politics, the people who make goods or provide services to be career ________. I want a pharmacist who knows how pharmaceuticals may interact and isn't learning off of YouTube. I want a guy who makes my car to know how to make a car. I want a guy who fixes my roof to know how to fix a roof and not have them do it as some hobby.

I'm not sure when or how it became a bad thing for politicians to have careers in politics.

Your assessment of Trump is brutal. But truthful.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm talking about someone who is supposedly going to be a better President than the two real choices we have.

Whomever that is, he or she doesn’t want to be president – and understandably so.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

She's a former governor and UN ambassador. It was a small state and a position in which her job was to show up and vote on matters that most Americans never even heard of. I would say she's a better choice than the blob but isn't there someone who offers more?

That is more than Obama offered when he ran in 2008

 

[candycorn]

That is more than Obama offered when he ran in 2008

This is true. Hillary was a much better choice for President in 2008 and 2016.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Okay...if they are viable...why aren't they winning or in Gavin's case...why isn't he running?

I would think the first thing you need in filling any job is finding someone who wants it.

Are these the only two people who "should" be the nominees of their parties???

Great question- The reason that the Repubs are stuck with the giant orange clown is because they have no balls. The reason the Dems have sleepy creepy Joe is because they’re stupid. Those are really the only explanations I have for why one of these 2 reprobates will be the next president. Oh and to be clear- when I refer to the Repubs and Dems in this post, I mean the powers that be in the parties, not the somewhat mindless voters who wear red or blue.