I voted for Hans Riemer AMA

[Anonymous]

I find it hilarious when progressives insist they can vote for whoever they want and it can't possibly be a wasted vote. No, we don't live in a magical fairy land (or a place with ranked choice voting). Of course it's a wasted vote lol. I don't love Blair either but there's a good chance he'll be better than Elrich, who is awful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it hilarious when progressives insist they can vote for whoever they want and it can't possibly be a wasted vote. No, we don't live in a magical fairy land (or a place with ranked choice voting). Of course it's a wasted vote lol. I don't love Blair either but there's a good chance he'll be better than Elrich, who is awful.

Their focus on RCV and not runoff elections gives the game away. They don’t want elections to better reflect the democratic will with a candidate having majoritarian support. Instead, they want to devise bizarrely complicated and opaque systems that will hopefully allow their preferred candidates to win by one vote in a plurality. Voting and democracy as it is practiced in most of the world is as simple and straightforward as possible. They don’t want democracy and it’s very clear.

[Anonymous]

Does he know that he looks like an entitled white guy when he does Zooms, with his perfectly placed guitar?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it hilarious when progressives insist they can vote for whoever they want and it can't possibly be a wasted vote. No, we don't live in a magical fairy land (or a place with ranked choice voting). Of course it's a wasted vote lol. I don't love Blair either but there's a good chance he'll be better than Elrich, who is awful.

Their focus on RCV and not runoff elections gives the game away. They don’t want elections to better reflect the democratic will with a candidate having majoritarian support. Instead, they want to devise bizarrely complicated and opaque systems that will hopefully allow their preferred candidates to win by one vote in a plurality. Voting and democracy as it is practiced in most of the world is as simple and straightforward as possible. They don’t want democracy and it’s very clear.

While I find it both hilarious and unfortunate that instead of using specifics to garner support for their own preferred candidates and policies people are slagging what they imagine other people want or are doing. I’m old enough to remember when opinions and facts were viewed as distinctions well worth making, and when opinions were supported with well-reasoned arguments. How times change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it hilarious when progressives insist they can vote for whoever they want and it can't possibly be a wasted vote. No, we don't live in a magical fairy land (or a place with ranked choice voting). Of course it's a wasted vote lol. I don't love Blair either but there's a good chance he'll be better than Elrich, who is awful.

Their focus on RCV and not runoff elections gives the game away. They don’t want elections to better reflect the democratic will with a candidate having majoritarian support. Instead, they want to devise bizarrely complicated and opaque systems that will hopefully allow their preferred candidates to win by one vote in a plurality. Voting and democracy as it is practiced in most of the world is as simple and straightforward as possible. They don’t want democracy and it’s very clear.

While I find it both hilarious and unfortunate that instead of using specifics to garner support for their own preferred candidates and policies people are slagging what they imagine other people want or are doing. I’m old enough to remember when opinions and facts were viewed as distinctions well worth making, and when opinions were supported with well-reasoned arguments. How times change.

Yes, I just imagined the polls, and I imagined the election 4 years ago lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it hilarious when progressives insist they can vote for whoever they want and it can't possibly be a wasted vote. No, we don't live in a magical fairy land (or a place with ranked choice voting). Of course it's a wasted vote lol. I don't love Blair either but there's a good chance he'll be better than Elrich, who is awful.

Their focus on RCV and not runoff elections gives the game away. They don’t want elections to better reflect the democratic will with a candidate having majoritarian support. Instead, they want to devise bizarrely complicated and opaque systems that will hopefully allow their preferred candidates to win by one vote in a plurality. Voting and democracy as it is practiced in most of the world is as simple and straightforward as possible. They don’t want democracy and it’s very clear.

While I find it both hilarious and unfortunate that instead of using specifics to garner support for their own preferred candidates and policies people are slagging what they imagine other people want or are doing. I’m old enough to remember when opinions and facts were viewed as distinctions well worth making, and when opinions were supported with well-reasoned arguments. How times change.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. But if it is a reflection on how Hans Riemer has refused to run on his 12 record and instead run a disturbingly negative campaign supported by a billionaire from his home state of California to influence a county executive race in Maryland, then I absolutely agree.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[Anonymous]

Honest question: Have you ever actually talked to him? Face to face?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does he know that he looks like an entitled white guy when he does Zooms, with his perfectly placed guitar?

I hate his background soooooo much. The Obama pic is over the top.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honest question: Have you ever actually talked to him? Face to face?

You seem to discount that a major reason people are disturbed by him and are happy to see him out of office is exactly because they have interacted with him face to face, beyond glad handing at a Metro entrance.

He’s a lightweight who cares little for details. When asked hard questions, he equivocates and frequently just straight up lies. He’s been doing this for 12 years now.

[Anonymous]

I posted the first question, the one regarding crime. It doesn’t appear as if the OP is going to return. Will any Riemer voter address what they think he’ll do to address rising crime? Especially with his clear disdain and lack of support for MCPD?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I posted the first question, the one regarding crime. It doesn’t appear as if the OP is going to return. Will any Riemer voter address what they think he’ll do to address rising crime? Especially with his clear disdain and lack of support for MCPD?

He doesn't know how to address crime. He is only speaking to his base, the anti-police activists. It is a progressive litmus test -- who wants to reduce police more. He wants to pass the test.

And those activists are, shocker, UMC white women.

As Shadi Hamid has tweeted, "Obviously it's people of color -- not white liberals -- who are most affected by crime, so there's something odd about those same white liberals insisting that higher crime rates are a figment of people's imagination. There's a word for that. It's gaslighting."

[Anonymous]

PP, it's UMC white men, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, it's UMC white men, too.

Ok. I just see them screaming at Council during public hearings.