This is a subverse designed to encourage adult discussion spanning the entirety of the political spectrum. All are welcome, from Libertarians to Authoritarians, Democrats to Republicans, An Caps to Anarchists, Socialists to Fascists to Communists, Green, Blue, Black, White, Purple with Yellow Polka dots, whatever color, persuasion, or affiliation, this is a place for you to post your thoughts, articles, and engage in discussion meant to foster understanding.
Politics is best when we try to avoid personal attacks, limits on discussion, censorship, trolling, shilling, racism, homophobia, antisemitism, or any other forms of bigotry and malfeasance.
Election 2020 Politics Sticky
Politics 2017 Christmas Theme sticky
Nov 2016 sticky on new CSS
This subverse belongs to the community of users. Users are invited to post meta-threads about v/politics and I will gladly sticky them. @flyawayhigh
Use the "Report Spam" link to report spam and someone will review the report. J-mods have the ability to remove duplicate noncommercial spam.
v/politics is for all politics.
v/uspolitics is for US politics only.
v/worldpolitics is for international or non-US politics.
v/politicalnews is dedicated to virtually censor-free politics and news
v/news is for news around the world.
v/usnews is for domestic news only.
Sort: Top
[–] Arotaes_Forgehammer 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
That would break the Internet and a LOT of other stuff. Things might actually get done.
[–] collegetoker [S] ago
And not only may things get accomplished, but they may also potentially be the right things.
[–] collegetoker [S] ago
That's kinda what I'm hoping. I seeded this question/opinion to reddit in hopes that it would spark a debate on the merits of it and potentially support, but as it currently seems, it's not something that people want to even really talk about. Despite how the voat community can be rough around the edges to the outside observer and some of the hate groups it harbors, it seems that this community harbors a greater amount of people who are willing to think critically and actually hash stuff out, so I tried here instead.
I'm seriously interested in the pros/cons that people come up with in response to this, provided people take the time to look at it.
[–] sp00kygh0st 1 point 1 point 2 points (+2|-1) ago
Will never work, Bernie is a SJW who wants amnesty for illegals, and Trump is the exact opposite.
[–] collegetoker [S] 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
That is exactly why it would work. It is the counter balance of one extreme to another. With those two radically opposing viewpoints, the consensus these two diametrically opposed viewpoints is immigration reform as it would allow for asylum or migration for those who need it/ would be a net positive to society while allowing for a screening of bad actors.
[–] sp00kygh0st ago
Fuck that, Trump doesn't get half his votes if he backs down on immigration, including mine
[–] BoiseNTheHood 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
You do realize that a successful campaign has to stay on message, right? What are voters supposed to expect when Trump talks about deportations and walls but his running mate promises amnesty?
[–] Agedwithaview 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Which one is President and which is Vice President? Also, you can't really have a discussion without an imagined congressional makeup. If the Donald is President, even he doesn't have enough money to move (bribe) congress and Sanders can only talk and the Donald has shown that he is not a very good listener (he forgets the things that he has said let alone what he remembers as having been said by anyone else. If Sanders is President, the Donald has no incentive to be on the ticket - he has never shown any willingness to be just an "equal" in a discussion let alone willingly be labeled #2.
[–] collegetoker [S] ago
Bernie would likely be president as he would need Donald to consider him his equal. I honestly believe that Donald would take VP if it meant he could leave his mark on US history as an activist VIce President. Besides, the whole idea of having the VP simply act as an understudy is antiquated, and it should be a more interactive role which allows for real debate and change to be occur at all levels. I don't agree with 100 percent of what either of them say, but I think that the two of them combined could act as the best of both worlds, helping to reduce the echo chamber effect that happens when you are surrounded by segregated (Congressional and Senatorial majorities versus the President) communities that all disagree with one another. If a real dialogue occurs at the top with people who are two strong headed to bow to the status quot but develop a mutual respect for one another, maybe some real change will occur.
[–] Agedwithaview 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
We are talking about the same Donald aren't we? I would love to see an example where he was will to be the #2 - based on his rhetoric (and that show) I just can't imagine it.
On a serious note, Vice Presidents have come in all shapes and sizes but the biggest issue is constitution driven - VP's duties are limited to serving as "president pro tem" of the senate with the ability to break a tie vote. The only other duty is being the understudy ready to go on stage if needed. Historically, most VP's have served as a foil for the President, making public appearances to advance the President's agenda, schmoozing with congressional leaders to formulate and advance legislation and of course, attending funerals for "less" important foreign heads of state ....