Nice conversation.
I think there’s a slim chance he will win against Balint as she has so much media attention and many will vote for her based on party, ads, and endorsements but I think a lot of people likely don’t know how grounded yet progressive Madden’s platform is.
More reasonable politicians like him, please!
Yeah he seems like a nice enough guy but this whole "Wow both parties" just feels like he can't pick a side. If both parties are toxic to you, run a s an independent.
>The guy who ran as a Republican for the laughs is the grounded one?
I missed this, I googled around to try and find out more, didn't come across anything, care to share a link or how you came to this conclusion? Genuinely asking, because this would change my view of him. a la learning more about dan price
He ran as a Republican because he knew he had no shot as a Democrat. Promised to ditch the Republicans if he actually got the nomination, then forgot to actually register as an independent so he had to keep the nomination. His whole campaign is a political stunt and some "I'll game the system for my benefit" bullshit. Wouldn't surprise me if he knew he'd have a better shot at the Republican nomination because he's a dude running against women.
While I agree it could be viewed he's gaming the system, the Republicans didn't really put their best foot forward with Ericka... Further, his policies are both dem/repub so he could really align with either, so the gaming the system is debatable and all this could be a consequence of him trying to win.
Anyway, I'm not sure how you go from gaming the system to political stunt. Seems like that's you're opinion, which is fine, it'd make it easier for me to understand if you stated that. If it's not your opinion then I'm all ears on the logic from, trying to win to a political stunt.
> He ran as a Republican because he knew he had no shot as a Democrat. Promised to ditch the Republicans if he actually got the nomination, then forgot to actually register as an independent so he had to keep the nomination.
What about this sequence of events, which he has admitted took place, doesn't strike you as a political stunt? This is someone we should trust to be a public servant? The guy who apparently isn't all too concerned with deadlines and getting proper paperwork filed? Is this one of those situations where everyone and their brother can see the sky is blue, but you need it in writing to believe it?
Perhaps the disconnect is in definitions: I would characterize a political stunt as something with no intention to really win, but to start building a brand.
I don't need it in writing, but a bullet point list of the specific things you don't like, such as "he didn't meet the deadlines and was non chalant about it, here's the video clip <http://liam-misses-deadline.com>" would def be helpful.
I think I understand where you are coming from, you are concerned about his attitude towards the job and I have seen evidence that supports that.
​
Read on if you want feedback on how to communicate more effectively:
You used abstract concepts to roll up what you did not like about him, not everyone is as informed as you are. You use political stunt/gaming the system to summarize -> that you didn't like how he missed the deadlines, since it is important to be able to abide by the bureaucracy in order to be an effective politician.
​
Thanks for bringing my mind to that info, that is a good point. I think this goes back to my initial comment, he's not ready, summary -> he's immature. Give him 10 years and his naivety will wear down and he'll realize he needs to be able to play the game.
[deleted]
Stunt: one performed or undertaken chiefly to gain attention or publicity
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stunt
Now what would you call someone running in a particular political party's primary with the stated goal of rejecting the nomination so they can run as an independent once they get name recognition?
You are making the leap that it's for name recognition, that may be so. What I'm struggling with is it is not clear to me that, that is his goal. It may be due to a lack of following the topic. All I found on this was:
https://www.wcax.com/2022/08/10/madden-face-balint-us-house-race/
and a few others, that regurgitate the above content. From that what I can know is that Liam would take the nomination or decline in order to best position him to win. This could be viewed as gaming the system but is not necessarily the accurate conclusion. It is his stated open that he is anti party, so he is going to try and mess that up as best he can, I have not considered that ramifications of that heavily and that could be bad. But it is still not clear that he did the above for name recognition, sure that's a possiblity, but with the information I have, which are the links above, I don't see how that is any more plausible than say he wants to destroy the two party system, or he really wants to win.
If you want to help, please provide me with information. If you think this is something obvious, then there is clearly some information I'm missing. Otherwise thanks for the discussion.
I think the “fuck this guy” attitude in recent political discourse is destructive to the health of our political system and to our communities. While I don’t think your characterizations of him are fair based on what I have read and heard about and from him, you are entitled to your vote, feelings and opinions.
I’m glad that we have two good candidates in Balint and Madden with a lot of common ground and that they are displaying respect for each other.
Which is more destructive? "Fuck this guy" or "Women decide to kill off their soon-to-be born babies on a whim and we need to control them."
I have not seen anything from or about him that indicates the words you are putting in quotes (but which you made up yourself) is an accurate portrayal of his views. From his page on reproductive rights:
“Pre-fetal-viability abortion, to me, is a healthcare option that is a part of bodily autonomy and it should be available to all women regardless of your state’s political or cultural makeup. I think this right to bodily autonomy is already protected by the constitution in multiple ways. But clearly the courts disagree. So, the options to affirm that right are:
A constitutional amendment explicitly affirming our right to govern our own bodies.
A federal law that supersedes the state laws.
Changing the make up of the Supreme Court.
I am in favor of all three. I would prefer the first. The second is the most realistic.
“But what about late term abortions"? Like almost everyone, I am repulsed by the idea of a 9 month pregnancy being aborted for trivial or heartless reasons. However, I am also aware that only 1.3% of abortions happen in the second half of pregnancies (post 21 weeks), and any abortion in the last trimester is an exceedingly rare event. Basic logic, and my experience as a parent tells me that almost every single person who has carried a baby to the third trimester intends to keep that baby, and only a fetal anomaly or other tragic situation has made a later term abortion a decision they had to consider.
I don’t believe these tragic situations require further government intrusion in our most personal decisions. Ironically, one thing that would prevent more late term abortions, while protecting the choice of women, would be more access to early abortions and contraception, which I support.”
He's peddling the bullshit, even if he wants to couch it as rare, that women are choosing to end their pregnancies at nine months "for trivial and heartless reasons." You can find that acceptable. I don't.
99.9% of the world finds it unacceptable.
While he's reasonable, Balint isn't going to win because of the media attention, party, ads or endorsements. She's going to win because she is a much better candidate. I like Liam and I'd be his friend but he's not ready, he still has a lot to learn.
My best of all worlds is Balint wins and takes him onto her team, so that he can mature and figure out how to help get his philosophy actualized.
Eh. When she brought in millions in dark money to win a primary she lost my vote. We don't need more politicians like that.
He has an interesting platform and I agree with a lot of it (not all), but I agree with a much higher percentage of Balint's platform. I like the other comment that said he would make a good addition to her team.
Kixeliz t1_ist7vnk wrote
The guy who ran as a Republican for the laughs is the grounded one? The guy who only won because right wingers are so misogynistic they refused to vote for actual Republicans who happened to also have a vagina?
He might make a great politician, but this stunt to get his name out there soured me on taking him seriously, as he doesn't appear to take any of this seriously. That, and he talks about "pre-fetal-viability" when it comes to abortion, as in he thinks there is a point where the state should step in and make a woman's medical choices for her. That at some point during the pregnancy, the fetus takes priority over the mother. "Grounded" my ass. Here's a quote from his campaign website, "Like almost everyone, I am repulsed by the idea of a 9 month pregnancy being aborted for trivial or heartless reasons." Fuck this guy and his anti-abortion talking points.