So… they swap out the couchfucking weirdo for the brain-worm weirdo.
this is gonna go so well!
Slurp that fetid whale juice!
All hail the hypno-choad.
As long as we don’t discuss donnie, it might be a sort of valid strategy.
Or so I start to think.
Lol, at least with Vance there’s potential deniability concerning his weirdness. It’s proven that RFK fucking is obsessed with dead animals.
And protest too much?
Trump dies on the second day in office, then the newly minted President Kennedy butchers a bald eagle on the Oval Office desk, cooks it in an air fryer perched on the railing of the window, then tosses it in buffalo sauce and eats it before blowing the brain worms to kingdom come with an original flintlock from the time of Thomas Jefferson that was sitting on one of the shelves.
I’m not even sure I oppose this timeline
Would yield president Hakeem Jeffries. I’m ok with that
I would watch that pay per view.
I’m fine with this. Honestly. Beats having President Trump again, and you know it does.
If Dems take the House and make someone besides Nancy Pelosi the Speaker then this isn’t a bad outcome
Hakeem “More Hand Movements than an Air Force Ground Crew” Jeffries is the name you seek.
this comment is extra special.
Better than the shit Vance has planned.
(I have no idea what rfk has planned.)
RFK vs Walz would be a truly insane debate.
“how many roadkill raccoons have YOU fit into a roadkill deer? Huh, Mr Waltz?!?”
My opponent has never chainsawed off the head of a dead whale for personal whale anatomy experiments. Do you really want someone without that valuable experience as second in line for the presidency?
leans on podium “hey buddy, what are you doing after this?”
Waltz: “going to pick up my wife and go for a nice drive, you?”
RFK: “So I’m hearin ‘nothin’. How bout we find some dead animals and relocate them to other places, with oft-stolen items? If I can find a cat, I’m gonna put it by the library with a rolled up $20.”
Waltz: “Why does it have to be rolled up?”
RFK: “that’s… look man, that’s just how it already is right now, alright? That’s how the bank lady gave it to me, or whatever. Anyways, if we find a squirrel, I’m putting it at an elementary school with a gun, some drugs and a flamingo lawn ornament.”
Waltz: “and this is a hobby of yours?”
RFK: incoherent screaming
RFK is an insane piece of shit but he’s been sober for a very long time. He used to be hella addicted to heroin.
This made me laugh out loud
Oh please do.
I will fucking bet you he does it and the numbers drop after it happens. In fact I have this bet already, but I’ll make it again.
Do you think he’d swap back, or find some new guy?
after some dumb shit? Bruh idk. This election season so fucking off the rails.
But I owe some one twenty bucks if the following doesn’t happen:
Trump swaps out Vance as VP and the resulting polling is lower.
If that does happen, I will much more than 20 bucks.
Is there a time frame involved? Like…if the polling goes up in the first week and then falls off a cliff after brain worm guy opens his mouth?
No time frame. I’d need way better odds than what I got to put a timeline on it.
Idk, I think I’d see trump numbers up after that. RFK jr is going appeal to the fringe libertarian…especially considering the orange turd’s health and age
he tried to cozy up to the libertarians and they rejected him for not being very libertarian at all
Bet? $20?
Last person gave me 100 to one on the parlay that he both swaps out the VP nomination AND when that is done, his poll numbers go down.
So if you believe what you said, my $20 is free money.
All bets are off at this point imo, this shit has been going in what ever way the wind blows. Although, I would bet on a Kamala presidency 🤞if everyone votes
Wasn’t Vance officially chosen by the delegates at the RNC? Can Trump actually pick someone else now? What would the party have to do to change their nomination after the convention-hold an emergency meeting and revote?
At this point there’s no way to do it legally. Ballots are already being printed. But legality’s not an issue for Trump and his personal fan club.
I think Vance could step down, then Trump would have no running mate, I think? And a VP would be appointed by Congress if he wins? Idk.
Technically,
The president and vice president are chosen by the electoral college in separate votes.
Though, for some time, it’s always been the winning candidate’s selected running mate… there is no requirement there. The electors could pick Mittens the back flipping poodle for VP if they wanted.
Fun fact, the VP was originally supposed to be whoever got second place in the presidential election…until they figured out that the candidates might hate each other and that relationship isn’t so great for a president and their VP.
It’s not so much that as that the coalitions and eventual parties wanted to hold both seats, so they ran multiple candidates with the assumption that one would be president and the other vice president. The electors would then structure their votes to ensure that the correct person was elected to each position. However, with the difficulties in long-distance communication at the time, this was prone to error. In 1800, this almost led to the candidate for vice president being elected as president.
After that, they realized that it didn’t make sense to use one slate if candidates for both positions, so they separated out the ballot into president and vice president. That’s essentially how the elections had been running up to that point (particularly because they always had two votes to cast), but it was to easy to make a mistake. Both before and after the amendment, there was a presidential candidate with a running mate vying for the vice presidency.
Thanks for the additional context. And yeah, you’re right about the coalitions trying to control both spots.
I don’t think we can totally ignore that the 1796 Adams-Jefferson presidency was a vivid example to Congress–specifically, the congress that eventually passed the 12th amendment after the dumpster fire of the 1800 election–on the importance of relationship dynamics in getting things done.
I actually had written an answer about the effects of the 12th amendment on the politics StackExchange that details how the original elections worked (or failed) under the old system.
The interesting thing to me about this is that after Washington, there had always been running mates, and the problem wasn’t that the President and Vice President may be political opponents. The problem was the old system was open to gamesmanship that thwarted the will of the voters.
1796 did not end with an Adams-Jefferson administration because Jefferson came in second. If things went as planned, it would have been Adams-Pinckney instead. But Hamilton preferred Pinckney over Adams and tried to sway the electors for Jefferson-Burr to vote Jefferson-Pinckney instead, which would have led to a Pinckney-Adams administration despite Pinckney campaigning with Adams as his presumptive Vice President. However, his plan didn’t work out, and Jefferson ended up getting the second most number of votes. This led to an Adams-Jefferson administration which was not supposed to happen. This was bad, but the shady dealings happened in the dark, and Adams was at least elected President in accordance to the popular vote. The politicians at the time thought that they could just sweep this under the rug as they now had a better understanding of how to manage their electors.
But, that turned out to be false. In 1800, they planned to be smarter with allocating the electors’ votes, but the Democratic-Republicans failed and accidentally cast the same number of votes for both Jefferson and Burr. Under the Constitution, a tie is decided in the House, and the makeup of the House meant that Federalists had the advantage. They preferred Burr over Jefferson, so they tried to subvert the election and appoint a Burr-Jefferson administration rather than Jefferson-Burr. Hamilton ultimately convinced the Federalists to relent and give the election to Jefferson. This was now the second time that Hamilton intervened to orchestrate the results of the election, and this time, it was all out in the open on the House floor. Furthermore, in both of these instances, Hamilton’s actions screwed over Burr, leading to the infamous Hamilton-Burr duel that left Hamilton dead and Burr disgraced. So not only did the election show that this Constitution was failing in the democratic ideals of the revolution, it also led to the untimely downfall of two of the country’s top political leaders.
So yes, the 1796 election exposed a pretty major issue, and the 1800 election showed that that issue could not be ignored. However, if you’re suggesting that the 1796 election led to the 12th Amendment because it showed the problems that arise when the President and Vice President are not politically aligned, I’m not so sure. It’s possible, but I don’t think that was a revelation to them. At the very least, the parties at the time were always trying to fill both offices with specific people, even before the 12th Amendment. The biggest problem they were trying to address was the way that the old system could be gamed by political elites.
Also, sorry for the big wall of text. I just find this to be a very interesting topic.
I’ve had fun learning more about it and that includes your exceptional replies. Thanks for sharing your knowledge!!
TRUMP
MITTENSSize S
It would be peak Trump to announce a VP change without checking if it was actually possible 🍿🍿
Trump can do pretty much anything he wants. No one in the GOP has any power to stop him and the moon that supports him.
Lol I meant “mob” but I’ll leave it :p
Trump can do any goddamn thing he wants. SCOTUS will step in to make sure RFK is on the ballots if needed.
Democrats: “We’re suing to keep Vance on the ballot”
SCOTUS: “Actually, Trump can do whatever he wants, plus we’re giving him 100 free electoral votes because fuck you.”
The RNC can just change its rules.
Or simply not follow them like history has shown
Agree that they would happily bend any rules for trump, but the RNC already happened and they chose Vance as the VP candidate. How does the Republican Party change their rules now? They would need to have some sort of party vote I think. Emergency RNC 2.0?
Like they’d get in trump’s way?
No, I’m sure they’ll try to support whatever he says. But, officially the party nominates the VP candidate which they’ve already done. When Trump tells them to change it, I don’t know what mechanism exists to actually do that. The campaign on its own cannot change the ticket.
It’s all winners in that party, I tell ya, lol
They are truly sending their best.
ironically, RFK Jr has never had an elected office. So he’s every ounce as incompetent as Trump. Not that Vance is any more competent.
From what I’ve seen of the guy, I feel the only reason anybody knows him is his name.
C’mon man, give his batshit insane behaviour a little credit.
The couch fucking weirdo is tanking the numbers! Quick! Go find the guy with the brain worm!
Does the GOP have problems finding normal people to run?
Yeah, I guess they would.
You know, it’s funny; when you look at someone through rose-colored glasses, all the red flags just look like flags. - Bojack Horseman
Or, more accurately: When you surround yourself with weirdos, all the weirdos start to look normal.
No, normal people just don’t poll well with the GOP.
They are all so weird.
They didn’t actually. They had problems getting them through primaries.
Ex brain worm, they broke up
The brain eating worm starved to death.
This shit just writes itself.
Damn, that worm has better judgement than Cheryl Hines.
Turns out… The worm was doing all the thinking
deleted by creator
THE WEIRDO EXCHANGE PROGRAM
ACT NOW
😭😭😭
You can’t switch candidates like that! That’s a coup!
At least it is according to this weird douchebag who told me he was totally trustworthy
The thing is they wouldn’t have a problem with you calling it that, because the whole purpose was to degrade what an actual coup is before they do one
Yeah no disagreement here. I think a lot of the “every accusation is a confession” thing comes from trying to condition voters to think less of the horrible headlines that inevitably surface.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha.
This timeline is wild.
That’s my bet as of this last weekend, tbh.
Trump’s kinda obviously having serious buyers remorse over Vance and how he’s basically fucking kryptonite to the vast majority of women. And I’m sure he thinks including the Kennedy name on his ticket will give him a big boost. And now that he’s pulling both RFK and Tulsi closer in to the campaign, I’m really thinking it’s only a matter of time.
Dementia Don and Brain Worm Bob. Name a more iconic duo.
That is a good one! Made me laugh :D
Ra. The Kennedy name. No one has given a shit about the Kennedys in so long. Hell, I forgot they existed until that group of smooth-brained dipshits started wearing red hats and quoting The Enquirer and Weekly World News stories as gospel and insisting the one that sadly died in plane crash 25 years ago was raising from the dead.
That’s the weird thing. Right wing boomers are the only ones who still care about the fabled glory of the Kennedy name. As if claiming Camelot grants them something… I don’t even know what their brain worm riddled brains are imagining. The KENNEDIES are ours now! Victory will surely be ours! No one gives a single fuck.
I think theyre kinda interesting in a Chris chan or Onision kinds way, its such a dumpster fire that I want to watch it while eating popcorn.
Oh, I know. All I’m saying is that I believe that’s his “logic”, such as it is.
Bill Burr had a bit about Schwarzenegger marrying a Kennedy, basically marrying into royalty. The whole thing that the guy immigrated, became a movie star, got rich, married into royalty, became governor, how the fuck did that happen.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is unironically living the American dream. Plus he sees right through the Magats and can tell theyre fascists, which is based.
Yeah that was something talking about his father and the Nazis. Really ties it up.
He might eat back a few sub percentage points of his geriatric base.
You know Donald would cream himself if he could make signs that said Trump and Kennedy.
You cAnT jUsT CHanGe CanDiDAtes
No one knows anything about RFK
Who voted for him
Etc etc
Griffin hails from the centrist wing of the GOP. Every day, she said, Trump gives people like her “more and more permission to not vote for Republicans” as he surrounds himself with people like RFK Jr., Tulsi Gabbard and J.D. Vance, who on the fundamentals, “we just don’t agree on, whether it’s support for Ukraine, not having tariffs on imports, wanting to pass border security deals.”
“So I think he’s really doubling down to what is a minority within a minority of the GOP,” Griffin added.
I really hope this is true.
Any true “centrist” GOP person would have stayed away from Trump 8 years ago.
In America people who identify themselves as “centrist” usually have no strong opinions on anything. They might also be what we might call a traditional republican suddenly realizing they’re surrounded by fascists.
Except the gray alien is Reagan.
No, Reagan was evil, not neutral.
Just like “centrist” Republicans.
But do you think he had no strong feelings one way or the other? He certainly put forth the image of him wanting the best for everyone but his hands were pretty firmly in the controls of most of his worst policy decisions.
I’d argue Bush, Jr. is a better example of a centrist with no strong opinions on anything (and, thus, enabling those around him to do truly awful things).
Yes but also no. There are many people who don’t have strong political opinions. Sometimes they’re misidentified as centrists. But there are people who have strongly held political positions that fall in the center of the political spectrum. Then, of course, there is center-left and center-right. They’re still politically engaged, but don’t have much patience for the policy proposals put forward by the far left and far right.
Honestly, that sounds like both sides foolishness with extra steps. How can you be politically engaged and still think there’s a middle ground between “kill all minorities” and “don’t do that”?
That’s an obvious strawman argument. How about a spectrum between high taxes, generous social safety net and low taxes, skimpy social safety net? There are people with beliefs all along that spectrum. Of course, then there are people who want low taxes and a generous social safety net, but that’s another matter.
I mean that literally describes “socially liberal fiscally conservative” morons. No tax! Only benefit!
That’s the opposite of (genuine) fiscally conservatism, since it implies large fiscal deficits. Not that some fiscal deficits are inherently bad, they are widely misunderstood when used in a limited way.
I think centrist means “I am not a very thoughtful person, and I avoid any and all conflict even if avoiding the conflict hurts those around me more than dealing with the conflict directly would. If people I care about are affected by conflict I will blame the weaker of the two sides and avoid conflict further for short term gains.”
more and more permission to not vote for Republicans
Someone needs to tell these women that they don’t need permission from men anymore in order to vote the way they want.
As in 2016, he’s not appealing to the centrists. He’s letting the Dems do that. Dems go center, he picks up the anti-war and anti-government side of the Dems looking for a molotov cocktail to throw at the military industrial complex. Gabbard and RFK are an attempt to ruse enough of the left that is fed up with big government and big military. Trump in 2016 won because he was a molotov cocktail while Hillary took the center. In 2020, the primaries presented a progressive alternative that excited the base. 2024, the Dems have decided to revive Hilary’s strategy of camping the center, folding to the military industrial complex, and disenfranchising their base; likewise Trump is playing the anti-establishment dove. Trump won in 2016 like that. Maybe fewer people will be tricked this time after seeing what happened last time he was in office? Or that’s just wishful thinking.
It doesn’t matter if he scares off the center. In spite of the strong start, I see Kamala lining up to lose this election by copying Hilary’s strategy of collecting the center and establishment. It gives me the jitters. Dems need to run on a progressive path forward, not joyful ignorance while they stoke the fires of war. They need a platform that excites enough voters for downballot races. They need to stand up to the problems in our systems of governing that Trump is offering to burn down which might accelerate some sort of change before we die of ecosystem collapse. Clock is ticking, and the voters may decide we need a kick in the ass if the Dems decide to cozy up to the military like in 1968.
In general I’m in full agreement, but the fact that Biden stepped aside and they picked Walz as the VP gives me the perception that the Democratic Party is at least acknowledging the existence of the left. They absolutely need to triple or even quadruple down on progressive policies while Harris is in office though*, or we’ll be in the exact same position in four years, except with a competent speaker for the GOP instead of the Toupee.
*And not just in the last few months before the next election.
I’m not voting for her unless there is a permanent cease fire that Tuesday night. She has until 6:59 pm.
While I agree with you, it shouldn’t be forgotten that Hilary still had the popular vote. I think the Dem.s will still win due to Harris not being as hated as Hilary, likely better campaigning than Hilary, Trump being an abysmally bad candidate (just in terms of general political competency, regardless of his beliefs/positions; I think them winning will continue people not taking that point seriously enough), and Harris actually being able to bring out black (and, I would wager, Indian) voters.
I don’t think that black people were necessarily excited about Hilary but they absolutely are about Harris. I think they can likely win like this; it won’t be a landslide but it’ll be O. K.
I agree with what you think they ought to be doing (I want to push the Overton window leftward and going back to the center after it’s been pushed so much leftward over the last 8 years is both frustrating and bad policy) but I think Kamala has a bunch more shoring up than Hilary did. I also think it’s going to convince Dem.s that this is the way to win; if Kamala continues to govern from the center rather than like her voting record in the Senate, I think we get the same rush to neoliberalism Clinton ushered in. But I’m hoping otherwise.
I don’t know why you’re being down voted this is a legit concern
Couchfucker or chainsaw-whale-head guy . . . .
Spoilt for choice
Have there ever been weirder candidates? Fucking a couch is the least weird thing compared to chainsawing a whale’s head or abandoning a dead bear cub in Central Park, and the former is the only one of those probably not true (although Vance hasn’t denied it).
Or the brainworms from all the other roadkill he’s had a decades-long habit of collecting.
deleted by creator
JD, you’re fired!
