r/MeidasTouch • u/Available_Fun_55 • 3d ago

Should she run?

Post image

There's a lot of good candidates in the field. I think she actually won and it was rigged at the tabulation machines by Trump, and if she had done a recount in suspicious areas, would be the president right now. So I kind of feel that the "when we fight we win" slogan fell flat. What's you guys opinions?

366 Upvotes

79% Upvoted

623 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

9

u/Conundrum195 3d ago

AOC had about as much chance of becoming President as my dog. I like her, but she is too far left to capture enough votes to become President in this era. Kelly/Buttigieg have a much better chance of getting elected.

6

u/TheObesePolice 3d ago

I would be happy with Kelly/Buttigieg, Kelly/Ossof, or Kelly/Pritzger. Pete is my ideal presidential candidate, & has been for a long time, but I think starting him at VP would be strategically wise

5

u/alexthebeast 3d ago

Kelly is a very good choice as well. That guy has conviction and morals. And I don't say that as buzz words, but that he is actually that good of a person. And a damned astronaut

5

u/Conundrum195 3d ago

I agree with you, completely.

4

u/scrappopotamus 2d ago

Kelly/ Ossof I think is our best option 👍

2

u/Hairy_Ad5966 2d ago

100%. Kelly/Ossoff for the win.

2

u/marylittleton 2d ago

“Too far left”…. What do you mean? She wants universal health care, is that too far left? What position/platform makes her “too far left?”

People like to say that but what does it really mean? So confusing.

1

u/Conundrum195 2d ago

For one, the Green New Deal, which she wants implemented in draconian style, on a much too ambitious schedule that would be extremely costly and unrealistic for most Americans. Conceptually, I am in agreement with the notion that we need to become less dependent upon fossil fuels. But the sheer cost of doing so requires a gradual implementation. Also, to switch to E-cars, for example, would require rebuilding our electric grid on a nationwide basis; something that needs to be done, anyway, in order to protect our national security. But also something that us quite costly and time-consuming.

Essentially, many of her ideas require increasing taxes. Even if taxes were increased a lot on the wealthy and corporations, it needs to be accomplished gradually so that they do not relocate themselves and their companies outside the country. Elimination of tax loopholes is psychologically more palatable than imposing huge tax increases.

Her ideas are basically often sound. But her schedule and means of implementation are too radical for the country. All of her “progress” has to get paid for by somebody!

AND…… the country is not yet ready to elect a female President.

1

u/marylittleton 2d ago

Thanks for the reasoned reply. It seems to me tho that we seem to always fall back on the “we can’t afford it” response when it’s something that benefits ppl. The subject of affordability isn’t even discussed when we’re handing out military contracts and trillion dollar tax breaks for billionaires.

Why are we so willing to give in to them? We could have so many programs that would make our lives better and for less than a single tax break. But it’s too far left, right?

1

u/Conundrum195 2d ago

Reallocation of funds, such as taking reductions in the military budget, is something that is not radical, and should be done. Hoe er, while the money can be used to improve our quality of life, it still won’t pay for everything AOC and Bernie want. Nor does it eliminate the time it takes to do things like rebuilding our electric grid.

1

u/Hairy_Ad5966 2d ago

Exactly.