What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The States: Where We Wish Texas Would Secede Already

Status
Not open for further replies.
aparch said:
I can't find the TikTok, but prominent TikTok-er called out Christians for their indoctrination, grooming, and cannibalism.

.... and the only pushback he got on the video was from the cannibalism. They never denied the other two. He even pointed that out and they doubled down on it.
Click to expand...

They can't deny grooming and indoctrination. Confirmation is basically taking a child and making them promise to commit to the indoctrination they've been getting.


I got a text from Tudor Dixon's campaign on Tuesday, read through her points and was like, ok those are reasonable until she got to something about the leftists indoctrinating children in our schools.

I'm wondering if having 2 women running for governor will leave the sexist crowd with no one to vote for.
 
Mel Pearson fired. A poster or two in the other forum insisting this is a witch hunt with no proof lol. Seems like there’s enough proof
 
Thank god.

I really hope there isn't a single person, even among our most dedicated Rural Supremacists, who doesn't understand how IA-NH virtually ensures the Democratic nominee will not be representative of most Democrats in this country.

Make it SC-NV.
 
Swansong said:
Can someone explain to me why, in 2022, we still have caucuses at all? They seem so antiquated.
Click to expand...

They are supposed to be more direct democracy than primaries because representatives for the candidates give a pitch before the voting. In practice, though, they are awful. They aren't a New England town meeting, they're the parties forcing the results they want.
 
Kepler said:
They are supposed to be more direct democracy than primaries because representatives for the candidates give a pitch before the voting. In practice, though, they are awful. They aren't a New England town meeting, they're the parties forcing the results they want.
Click to expand...

Yep. I have been to a couple of ours and they are a joke. (my dad uses harsher words)

I dont mind one of Iowa and NH being in the first two but not both.
 
Yeah, that's the thing. It would be lovely if we were a small country and people had time and wherewithal to spend several hours meeting and discussing with the actual candidates, but 1820 was a long time ago and we don't have that anymore.
 
If we wanted a truly representative primary to start the Democratic process it would be CA. But we can't have that for the same reason we can't abolish the EC. We have an entitled minority that has always been celebrated as somehow more legitimate than the rest of us, even though that is at best complete bullsh-t and more likely not even hidden racism.
 
Last edited:
Kepler said:
If we wanted a truly representative primary to start the Democratic process it would be CA. But we can't have that for the same reason we can't abolish the EC. We have an entitled minority that has always been celebrated as somehow more legitimate than the rest of us, even though that is at best complete bullsh-t and more likely not even hidden racism.
Click to expand...

The classic reason I have always heard about avoiding California to start is it would be extremely expensive to mount a campaign (between travel and advertising). That would limit the number of candidates that could truly mount a campaign and the "lesser-known" (and lesser funded) candidates that might be a great fit would not even have a chance.

Does that argument still hold true today? I'm not sure.

Ultimately, we need to do better at picking a more representative primary. From what I've heard, is there will be 4 early primaries: Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. How about: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, and Nevada?
 
Fighting Sioux 23 said:
The classic reason I have always heard about avoiding California to start is it would be extremely expensive to mount a campaign (between travel and advertising). That would limit the number of candidates that could truly mount a campaign and the "lesser-known" (and lesser funded) candidates that might be a great fit would not even have a chance.

Does that argument still hold true today? I'm not sure.

Ultimately, we need to do better at picking a more representative primary. From what I've heard, is there will be 4 early primaries: Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. How about: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, and Nevada?
Click to expand...

Thing is I don't even think you do a traditional primary campaign anymore, as hearing about a candidate from your friend's social media is FAR more retail than a nonsense photo op rushed around by staffers and advance men.

I'd like to see purple states with 1+ big city and significant burbs and some rural sections, so I am thinking: PA, AZ, GA to give a good regional mix. The northeast is too urban. The prairie is too rural. CO could be a possibility but it's REALLY white and it's a state like VA where the Dems who live there are all college educated and wealthy so you aren't getting a cross-section, you're just getting the social stratum that will vote for you anyway.

You need states that have a large number of working class Dems. Actually that probably nixes AZ, too. So we're back to CA.
 
Last edited:
Fighting Sioux 23 said:
Ultimately, we need to do better at picking a more representative primary. From what I've heard, is there will be 4 early primaries: Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. How about: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, and Nevada?
Click to expand...

I'd pick MD over PA. Smaller, easier to get around, limited to a couple markets, most politicians are already in DC, and it has a mix of rural and cities to be more representative.
 
French Rage said:
I'd pick MD over PA. Smaller, easier to get around, limited to a couple markets, most politicians are already in DC, and it has a mix of rural and cities to be more representative.
Click to expand...

It's not representative at all, though, because the demographic split mirrors the partisan split. MD Dems are VA Dems. They are DC bureaucrats with education. They have no relationship to the rest of their states respectively. They are civilized oases in deserts of Republican rural stupidity.

At least there are black rural Democrats in GA, and brown rural Democrats in CA, NV, and even TX. But MD Dems are carpetbaggers from Yale.
 
Kepler said:
Thing is I don't even think you do a traditional primary campaign anymore, as hearing about a candidate from your friend's social media is FAR more retail than a nonsense photo op rushed around by staffers and advance men.
Click to expand...

This is certainly a fair point. However, convincing a bunch of old traditionalists that modern candidates have bucked tradition and no longer run a traditional campaign, may be difficult. Maybe in a couple cycles.

Kepler said:
I'd like to see purple states with 1+ big city and significant burbs and some rural sections, so I am thinking: PA, AZ, GA to give a good regional mix. The northeast is too urban. The prairie is too rural. CO could be a possibility but it's REALLY white and it's a state like VA where the Dems who live there are all college educated and wealthy so you aren't getting a cross-section, you're just getting the social stratum that will vote for you anyway.

You need states that have a large number of working class Dems. Actually that probably nixes AZ, too. So we're back to CA.
Click to expand...

I agree with purple states, it makes a lot of sense. I'd be fine with swapping Nevada for Arizona. FWIW, I'd also be fine with California. I just don't see them getting the nod right now.

As a Colorado citizen, I agree with your assessment to some extent. Colorado is very white, but about 1/4 of the white population is Hispanic. It's certainly not as diverse as Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, or California. However, it's not like it's Iowa or New Hampshire. Ultimately, for the "West" primary, I'd prefer one of the more diverse purple states (Arizona, Nevada, or New Mexico).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top