I don't think we need to keep running with a Trump like figure. I could see us running with someone more refined, who can punch out at times. For example, I could see a Cruz push with a larger focus on being personable.

I'd go for either a Pence or Cruz presidency in 2024.

I don't like this Vice President runs after the President sort of thing since it usually never works for the American people.

I don't think Pence runs. Honestly, Ted Cruz is my first guess. I think there needs to be some form of name recognition, and the only Republican candidate that I could see with the recognition is Cruz. I like Dan Crenshaw, but he isn't the most policy driven guy, from what I can recall.

I like Pence, policy wise and his demeanor, but I don't think he is a good move from Trump's energy level.

*Pence gets picked as Vice President a third time.*

He'll be known as America's Vice President. <:salut:730846445732888630> (historically)

Hope you aren't trying to start a poll, here, since this is the poll discussion channel. That being said, if he is a candidate, yes.

idk maybe

I respect Dan Crenshaw but I disagree with him on manh of the policies he has made.

Facts

Which policies? I don't know much about his policy making, but I do know his general stances.

For one he supports red flag laws

Yikes...

As far as section 230 goes
I think the companies should be responsible for promoted content, and "fact checks" which are also published content
the rest of the "platform" content they shouldn't be responsible for

True. I think that is the important distinction. Are they simply platforms or are they publishers? Fact checking and promoting is a form of publishing. That is not and should not fall under S 230, but I agree the platform aspect, as long as they don't remove content that shouldn't be removed, can still fall under S 230.

You just have to be very clear in the rules about what should be removed.

that's one of the problems
the rules are super vague

Section 230 was to protect platforms from the content of their subscribers. If the platform steps in for an editorial role, they should lose those protections.

should we trust polls this year

no

hail no

Look at 2016

Hillary was predicted to win by like 5 so add like 7 to trump

It will be more accurate

.warnlog

ok

can a poll be done to see everyone's age, like reactions showing "10-15", "16-18", "19-22", "23-29", "30-35"... ?

10-12 shouldn't even be allowed <:dogekek:726878872607653918>

whatever age ranges are reasonable, curious to see ratio of little sh1ts vs middle age vs old farts

and maybe male vs female

🤷why not

You can put it in <#725110151211778098>

@rr

sure, thanks

@SHAMAN966 Don't think you understand the purpose of this channel. Don't spam polls here.

bit abrupt but ok no worries

This isn't to discuss the presidential polls, but to discuss <#741520846484537404>

ah ok my bad

rr as far as I am aware you are not even aloud to have a discord account under the age of 13...

In case anyone sees this and is 12 or under, I and the other mods strictly enforce the age rule because it is a Discord ToS so do not say anything. If you are older, do not even joke about being 12 or less because if a mod sees it, you will be banned before you can say otherwise. We do not need to have this server shutdown over allowing ToS breakers to remain.

personally no one under 16 should be on discord let alone 13....