Something Completely Different

Welp, Trump crushed Nikki Haley in her own state, sweeping the first four states.

Trump wins South Carolina, easily beating Haley in her home state and closing in on GOP nomination (https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-nikki-haley-south-carolina-primary-republicans-13237d287ce770e0a45e9bccee78e8ee)

Beyond Trump's legal problems taking him out, and beyond a health complication or some switcheroo at the convention, it's almost certainly going to be a rematch of the 2020 Presidential Election with Trump v. Biden in 2024.

I figured the general could use its own thread separate from the 2024 Republican Primary, so here we are.

Trump seems to have a pretty clear advantage in many of the swing states right now, but a lot can change in a year's time (which is an eternity in politics).

https://www.realclearpolling.com/latest-polls/election

So let us pontificate on the presidential race and bitch and complain about our choices.

It's election season, after all.

(https://www.usatoday.com/gcdn/authoring/authoring-images/2023/10/10/USAT/71134524007-trump-biden.jpg?crop=3196,2398,x3,y1)

I don't like Biden at all. I'm not saying Donald is great but I really don't like Biden and I'd love to see him lose. It's probably best for him anyway.

Unreal that you have to choose between a potential convicted criminal and someone who should be in a care home.

Sad!

Quote from: jimmy jazz on Feb 25, 2024, 04:23 AMI don't like Biden at all. I'm not saying Donald is great but I really don't like Biden and I'd love to see him lose. It's probably best for him anyway.

Unreal that you have to choose between a potential convicted criminal and someone who should be in a care home.

Sad!

Reminds me of this ad Trump shared about Biden.

I implore anyone who thinks Biden winning will be worse than Trump to please look into Project 2025. This is bigger than both of them.

Only one party is openly stating their desire to remove women's rights, enact legal violence against trans and queer people, and enshrine all of it into law.

That doesn't even capture the full scope of the danger though. Trump getting re-elected would be a threat to democracy in general, for everyone not just in the us but also in all of Europe, with the political trends here and Putin's warmongering. I loathe Biden but the alternative is much worse

Quote from: Marie Monday on Feb 25, 2024, 10:55 AMThat doesn't even capture the full scope of the danger though. Trump getting re-elected would be a threat to democracy in general, for everyone not just in the us but also in all of Europe, with the political trends here and Putin's warmongering. I loathe Biden but the alternative is much worse

Yes, absolutely. I wanted to hone in on some of the more specific issues in my post, but yes, it is very much wider than those.

If Trump wins and the republicans get their way, there most likely will not be any more elections.

Quote from: Lexi Darling on Feb 25, 2024, 05:40 PMYes, absolutely. I wanted to hone in on some of the more specific issues in my post, but yes, it is very much wider than those.

If Trump wins and the republicans get their way, there most likely will not be any more elections.

A little hyperbolic, no? Feels similar to the claim that "Trump will start World War 3!" back in 2016, but even that prediction felt more likely.

Republicans aren't gonna end elections - their modus operandi in recent times has always been by the books, by the constitution, etc. It's why they so frequently lose elections. Democrats, on the other hand, are more willing to bend the rules a bit within the constraints of what's legal and what's not - which is why they win so frequently (recent example being all the advantageous changes they were able to enact in 2020 because of Covid).

The Republicans' own constituency would not stand for Trump and the GOP ending elections - if Trump wins, he'll likely (at least attempt to) push through some controversial policies - and after 4 years, he'll be heading off into the sunset and the Democrats will likely win in 2028, as there's no clear successor to Trump (who has galvanized the Republican party, getting more votes than any sitting president in 2020). And they'll, like they did after Biden won in 2020, reverse most policies of Trump they didn't like.

I still can't believe the Dems seem to be planning to ride into the 2024 election with Biden - especially given his approval rating and the poll results from the swing states. It seems like, even if they had some other stock establishment Dem like Newsom or maybe even Elizabeth Warren, there wouldn't be much chance for Trump, one of the most, if not the most, divisive candidates in history to win.

Quote from: SGR on Feb 25, 2024, 09:49 PMA little hyperbolic, no? Feels similar to the claim that "Trump will start World War 3!" back in 2016, but even that prediction felt more likely.

Republicans aren't gonna end elections - their modus operandi in recent times has always been by the books, by the constitution, etc. It's why they so frequently lose elections. Democrats, on the other hand, are more willing to bend the rules a bit within the constraints of what's legal and what's not - which is why they win so frequently (recent example being all the advantageous changes they were able to enact in 2020 because of Covid).

The Republicans' own constituency would not stand for Trump and the GOP ending elections - if Trump wins, he'll likely (at least attempt to) push through some controversial policies - and after 4 years, he'll be heading off into the sunset and the Democrats will likely win in 2028, as there's no clear successor to Trump (who has galvanized the Republican party, getting more votes than any sitting president in 2020). And they'll, like they did after Biden won in 2020, reverse most policies of Trump they didn't like.

I still can't believe the Dems seem to be planning to ride into the 2024 election with Biden - especially given his approval rating and the poll results from the swing states. It seems like, even if they had some other stock establishment Dem like Newsom or maybe even Elizabeth Warren, there wouldn't be much chance for Trump, one of the most, if not the most, divisive candidates in history to win.

I'm not going to try to have a political debate with you or predict anything. I am going off what Trump, the people behind the Project 2025 document, and other Republicans have said they plan to do. Do I think they will pass all of it with absolute certainty? No, maybe not. But they're spelling it out pretty openly that they are going to try.

Quote from: Lexi Darling on Feb 25, 2024, 10:19 PMI'm not going to try to have a political debate with you or predict anything. I am going off what Trump, the people behind the Project 2025 document, and other Republicans have said they plan to do. Do I think they will pass all of it with absolute certainty? No, maybe not. But they're spelling it out pretty openly that they are going to try.

Okay, where does the 'ending elections' thing come from?

Quote from: Marie Monday on Feb 25, 2024, 10:55 AMThat doesn't even capture the full scope of the danger though. Trump getting re-elected would be a threat to democracy in general, for everyone not just in the us but also in all of Europe, with the political trends here and Putin's warmongering. I loathe Biden but the alternative is much worse

Putin literally said he'd prefer Biden to win 2024 though.

Quote from: Lexi Darling on Feb 25, 2024, 05:40 PMIf Trump wins and the republicans get their way, there most likely will not be any more elections.

Highly doubtful.  He said he was going to throw Hillary in jail over and over again and never did it.  And that was something he was actually passionate about.  Dude can't even get a crowd to follow his instructions and you think he can somehow get rid of the other two branches of government with a magic wand.  If it was that easy to get your way in government, Biden would be all over it.

Quote from: Lexi Darling on Feb 25, 2024, 10:19 PMI am going off what Trump, the people behind the Project 2025 document, and other Republicans have said they plan to do. Do I think they will pass all of it with absolute certainty? No, maybe not. But they're spelling it out pretty openly that they are going to try.

People who get power politically try to get their way as opposed to letting the other party walk all over them? Shocking.

As long as we are polite to each other, which, to everyone's credit, we have been so far, it's kind of fun that we have our very own partisan divide on SCD, with the opposing sides apparently getting their news from different sources.
Surely there is a reputable balanced news source we can trust? Just out of ingrained habit, I trust the BBC to be pretty impartial, though a friend of mine denounces it for having a leftist agenda. I also watch NBC Nightly News progs, which actually seem to avoid political comment as much as they can, also PBS.
(I mainly watch CNN of course, and can see that several of their progs are overly-biased in the anti-Trump direction, but nothing as bad as Fox News, which I dip into for about five mins a week if a want a shock dose of "How can they say that with a straight face?")

Quote from: SGR on Feb 25, 2024, 09:49 PMRepublicans aren't gonna end elections - their modus operandi in recent times has always been by the books, by the constitution, etc. It's why they so frequently lose elections.

^ With all due respect, SGR, this seems to be a rather down-the-rabbit-hole appraisal. That right there in bold is the reason why they have a recent policy of cheating the electorate if they can get away with it. Examples: the fake electors scheme, the discredited accusations against Ruby Moss and Dominion and that Jan 6 call to hang Mike Pence. The Republicans are surely demonstrating a perfect willingness NOT to play by the book, it's just that many times they don't get away with it. 

QuoteDemocrats, on the other hand, are more willing to bend the rules a bit within the constraints of what's legal and what's not - which is why they win so frequently (recent example being all the advantageous changes they were able to enact in 2020 because of Covid).

By "advantageous changes" I suppose you are referring to policies that made voting easier/less of a health risk during a lethal pandemic (that has killed about 1.1 million Americans to date.) The "advantageous" bit, I suppose is (i) less people dying and (ii) more people participating in democracy, which long term will favour the popular vote = people prefer the Dems. 

QuoteThe Republicans' own constituency would not stand for Trump and the GOP ending elections

^ If you watch Kleper and others interviewing the nut-jobs he finds at Trump rallies, I don't think you'd be so confident about this. Those guys blithely talk about civil war if Biden wins, or about Trump being sent by God. Even in the saner GOP, there is a high percentage of people who deny that Biden is President, and who have shown that they place loyalty to Trump over any ethical considerations that have been raised thus far. Also, don't forget a Trump-heavy Supreme Court that are acting like a loose cannon, with Judge C Thomas sitting in on every decision which he should have recused himself from.
I don't think the GOP would ever announce: "There'll be no more elections" but I believe them capable of so many sly tricks of voter repression and electoral-college manipulation that, if Trump were in office again, elections would hold all the suspense of elections in Russia (i.e. none)*

* Or as a British comedian once remarked on a kind of SNL equivalent: " Thieves broke into the Kremlin last night and stole next year's election results"

The BBC have a leftist agenda on some things. If you go on their home page right now there'll be several articles and videos pushing identity politics. They are really into that sort of thing. Not just reporting but also programming.

But then they do things like that Corbyn incident where they tried to make him look Russian in the run up to the election in 2017.

They're also very dismissive of anything Midland, to the point I would say they are almost anti-Birmingham (I realise that describes most of the country but the national broadcaster shouldn't be doing it). I've already posted about the occasion I noticed them photoshopping a derogatory article (which they then admitted and apologised for before deleting the picture), they just would not have written a similar piece about other places. One of our MPs got involved. They also take the most money in license fees from the region and invest the smallest amount back in.

So basically I don't really like them.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Feb 26, 2024, 01:09 AM^ With all due respect, SGR, this seems to be a rather down-the-rabbit-hole appraisal. That right there in bold is the reason why they have a recent policy of cheating the electorate if they can get away with it. Examples: the fake electors scheme, the discredited accusations against Ruby Moss and Dominion and that Jan 6 call to hang Mike Pence. The Republicans are surely demonstrating a perfect willingness NOT to play by the book, it's just that many times they don't get away with it. 

I disagree - as we saw, the Republican party was completely divided over all of what you mentioned. You refer to it like it was some sort of party-wide plan, but that's far from the reality. Trump's second in command, Pence, blew up the entire plan. At best, this 'plan' encompassed Trump and his lawyers, not the Republican party.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Feb 26, 2024, 01:09 AMBy "advantageous changes" I suppose you are referring to policies that made voting easier/less of a health risk during a lethal pandemic (that has killed about 1.1 million Americans to date.) The "advantageous" bit, I suppose is (i) less people dying and (ii) more people participating in democracy, which long term will favour the popular vote = people prefer the Dems. 

That's certainly one narrative/way to frame it. Here's another:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/mail-in-ballot-fraud-study-finds-trump-almost-certainly-won-in-2020-post-5583575

Paste that URL into this site if the paywall blocks you:

https://12ft.io/

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Feb 26, 2024, 01:09 AM^ If you watch Kleper and others interviewing the nut-jobs he finds at Trump rallies, I don't think you'd be so confident about this. Those guys blithely talk about civil war if Biden wins, or about Trump being sent by God. Even in the saner GOP, there is a high percentage of people who deny that Biden is President, and who have shown that they place loyalty to Trump over any ethical considerations that have been raised thus far. Also, don't forget a Trump-heavy Supreme Court that are acting like a loose cannon, with Judge C Thomas sitting in on every decision which he should have recused himself from.
I don't think the GOP would ever announce: "There'll be no more elections" but I believe them capable of so many sly tricks of voter repression and electoral-college manipulation that, if Trump were in office again, elections would hold all the suspense of elections in Russia (i.e. none)*

* Or as a British comedian once remarked on a kind of SNL equivalent: " Thieves broke into the Kremlin last night and stole next year's election results"

This election, regardless of how it turns out, is going to be ugly. No voter base is going to be satisfied or convinced, regardless of the outcome. If Trump wins, do you think, for example, the Democrats will accept it as a fairly won election? Or do you think there will be more accusations of Russian election interference? And more baseless or crocked up investigations into what foreign actors may or may not have helped Trump get elected with their dastardly memes?

If the Republicans were motivated to end all elections and pull all these tricks to keep Trump and/or his allies in power, why wouldn't they have done it the first time? You know, when he was still eligible for another term (unlike next time, assuming he serves another term)? These fears of Trump and/or the Supreme Court ending fair elections if Trump gets elected again are just a Democrat fever-dream just like 2016 when they said the same ridiculous things before the election. And honestly, I think much of the fears the Democrats voice about what they think Trump will do if re-elected are just a projection - of what they would do if they were in his position and got re-elected.

Again, this is not projection on my part. They've literally said the stuff about trans people and women's rights out loud repeatedly.

Quote from: Lexi Darling on Feb 26, 2024, 02:30 AMAgain, this is not projection on my part. They've literally said the stuff about trans people and women's rights out loud repeatedly.

To be clear, when I talked about 'projection' I wasn't referring to that, I was more referring to the Democrats fear of Trump enacting 'revenge' on them through lawfare.

Imo Trump should've been rejected by the republican party after the Jan 6th and his numerous criminal activities. He should not be allowed to run and propping up Trump again seems rotten to me.

And Biden should be in a care home. His main draw is being a lesser evil.

So I agree with this:

Quote from: jimmy jazz on Feb 25, 2024, 04:23 AMUnreal that you have to choose between a potential convicted criminal and someone who should be in a care home.

Sad!

Sad - and sad how the crazy political situation in the US can affect the rest of the world as well.

Quote from: jimmy jazz on Feb 26, 2024, 02:00 AMThe BBC have a leftist agenda on some things. If you go on their home page right now there'll be several articles and videos pushing identity politics. They are really into that sort of thing. Not just reporting but also programming.

But then they do things like that Corbyn incident where they tried to make him look Russian in the run up to the election in 2017.

They're also very dismissive of anything Midland, to the point I would say they are almost anti-Birmingham (I realise that describes most of the country but the national broadcaster shouldn't be doing it). I've already posted about the occasion I noticed them photoshopping a derogatory article (which they then admitted and apologised for before deleting the picture), they just would not have written a similar piece about other places. One of our MPs got involved. They also take the most money in license fees from the region and invest the smallest amount back in.

So basically I don't really like them.

I'm sorry that has been your experience with the BBC, jimmy jazz. I've never noticed actual anti-Birmingham stuff, but I can 100% believe that they are focused on Westminster, London and the Home Counties. My apologies because as a Londoner I'm probably guilty of the same.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Feb 25, 2024, 11:10 PMPutin literally said he'd prefer Biden to win 2024 though.

Are you really taking a remark that Putin made at face value, Nimbly? With that attitude you could probably get a job on Tucker Carlson's team of investigative journalists. ;)

Putin said Tucker should have asked harder questions too, now that you mention it.  So what do you mean by "face value" in that context? All we ever have to go on with heads of state (for the most part) is what they say. It is precisely that reason that I don't really take a lot of what Trump says seriously regardless of the topic.  I also assume Biden lies every time he opens his mouth too.

Putin is a slightly different story though - he's not a gaffe machine like Biden or a loosey goosey ad libber like Trump.  He said years ago that he preferred Trump to Hillary.  Pretty sure he meant that.  Now he's saying he prefers Biden to Trump.  Going by his past comments, all you can do is assume he means what he says in this case.

Quote from: SGR on Feb 25, 2024, 09:49 PMA little hyperbolic, no? Feels similar to the claim that "Trump will start World War 3!" back in 2016, but even that prediction felt more likely.

Republicans aren't gonna end elections - their modus operandi in recent times has always been by the books, by the constitution, etc. It's why they so frequently lose elections. Democrats, on the other hand, are more willing to bend the rules a bit within the constraints of what's legal and what's not - which is why they win so frequently (recent example being all the advantageous changes they were able to enact in 2020 because of Covid).

The Republicans' own constituency would not stand for Trump and the GOP ending elections - if Trump wins, he'll likely (at least attempt to) push through some controversial policies - and after 4 years, he'll be heading off into the sunset and the Democrats will likely win in 2028, as there's no clear successor to Trump (who has galvanized the Republican party, getting more votes than any sitting president in 2020). And they'll, like they did after Biden won in 2020, reverse most policies of Trump they didn't like.

I still can't believe the Dems seem to be planning to ride into the 2024 election with Biden - especially given his approval rating and the poll results from the swing states. It seems like, even if they had some other stock establishment Dem like Newsom or maybe even Elizabeth Warren, there wouldn't be much chance for Trump, one of the most, if not the most, divisive candidates in history to win.

i agree it's hyperbolic to say there "most likely won't be anymore elections" if Trump wins, but I'm kind of puzzled about the next paragraph.

1) what do you mean by republicans so frequently lose elections because they are too "by the books" when compared to the democrats?

2) what rules did the democrats bend with regard to Covid and the 2020 elections?

Republicans are favored electorally in our system by the sheer way that it is set up. From the way the senate is structured to the electoral college, republicans are benefited by all of that. They so frequently lose elections because despite being propped up institutionally, they are pushing essentially an ideology that is on  its last legs. Trump and his complete capture of the right in a few short years is a perfect symptom of that.

I don't necessarily know what will happen if he gets re elected but I know I don't trust him. And I know that just relying on the institutions to stop him from doing anything extra feels like a needless gamble. I completely get looking at Biden and thinking he's not fit to run. But if you really trust Trump more after watching the last decade or so, I don't understand that. The guy is a clear liability.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Feb 26, 2024, 03:27 AMPutin said Tucker should have asked harder questions too, now that you mention it.  So what do you mean by "face value" in that context? All we ever have to go on with heads of state (for the most part) is what they say. It is precisely that reason that I don't really take a lot of what Trump says seriously regardless of the topic.  I also assume Biden lies every time he opens his mouth too.

Putin is a slightly different story though.  He said years ago that he preferred Trump to Hillary.  Pretty sure he meant that.  Now he's saying he prefers Biden to Trump.  Going by his past comments, all you can do is assume he means what he says in this case.

He also said he'd build the wall and ultimately sidelined it in favor of other things.  NATO doesn't really work if countries, for whatever reason, all decided to just stop paying one day. If things ever actually got the point where Germany or someone else went "delinquent" (in Trump's words) then you are already done.

For the record I also do not think Trump will win the election and immediately declare himself god emperor for life. But I think he and project 2025 can very easily set us on a path toward erosion of democracy, and I don't trust people like the MAGA party to have any reservations about trying to achieve that goal.

First of all, thanks for that wonderful tool that cleans your link of its paywall restriction, SGR. That's perfect for my approach to the internet, which is "Never give a site any information or money".

Quote from: SGR on Feb 26, 2024, 02:27 AMI disagree - as we saw, the Republican party was completely divided over all of what you mentioned. You refer to it like it was some sort of party-wide plan, but that's far from the reality. Trump's second in command, Pence, blew up the entire plan. At best, this 'plan' encompassed Trump and his lawyers, not the Republican party.

^ Maybe I gave that impression, but it doesn't have to be a party-wide plan; it just has to be a plan that enough influential people can push through, while any dissenting senators, etc keep their mouths shout out of fear of the MAGA base. Plenty of examples of these silent enablers: they were all over the votes that impeached Trump, but refused to do the next logical thing, which was to convict him. Also, you hear their silence every time M Taylor Green describes the jailed Jan 6 rioters as "political prisoners".

QuoteThat's certainly one narrative/way to frame it. Here's another:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/mail-in-ballot-fraud-study-finds-trump-almost-certainly-won-in-2020-post-5583575

Paste that URL into this site if the paywall blocks you:

https://12ft.io/

One quick way to check what is true or not is to bear in mind this piece of advice: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". So while your article was interesting, I noticed that it came to the opposite conclusion of countless court decisions and recounts that found no evidence of outcome-determinative fraud. The article, though, is only backed up by one report. I also found these paragraphs suspicious:-

"The December survey, which President Trump called "the biggest story of the year," suggested that roughly 20 percent of mail-in voters engaged in at least one potentially fraudulent action in the 2020 election, such as voting in a state where they're no longer permanent residents.
In the new study, Heartland analysts say that, after reviewing the raw survey data, subjecting it to additional statistical treatment and more thorough analysis, they now believe they can conclude that 28.2 percent of respondents who voted by mail committed at least one type of behavior that is "under most circumstances, illegal" and so potentially amounts to voter fraud."

^ Their original 20% figure has somehow been massaged upwards to 28.2%, but is also covered with caveats of "under most circumstances" and "potentially"

"Mail-in ballot fraud rates higher than 3 percent would, according to the study, mean more fraudulent Biden votes that should be subtracted from the total, putting President Trump ahead."

^ Maybe they have an argument for why every "fraudulent" vote was a vote for Biden, but I didn't notice it.

Mainly though, I'm relying on that maxim about "extraordinary claims" and assume that if this one (Heartland) report stands up to scrutiny from other experts, it'll turn up in more mainstream news outlets.

QuoteIf the Republicans were motivated to end all elections and pull all these tricks to keep Trump and/or his allies in power, why wouldn't they have done it the first time? You know, when he was still eligible for another term (unlike next time, assuming he serves another term)? These fears of Trump and/or the Supreme Court ending fair elections if Trump gets elected again are just a Democrat fever-dream just like 2016 when they said the same ridiculous things before the election. And honestly, I think much of the fears the Democrats voice about what they think Trump will do if re-elected are just a projection - of what they would do if they were in his position and got re-elected.

^ The lack of success first time round is because (i) the Trump White House was full of old Republican "guard rail" politicians like John Bolton and (ii) the fake elector scheme was a new, just invented ploy. If Trump wins again, his "revenge tour cabinet" will look very different: Trump loyalists   with a working model of how to subvert an election.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Feb 26, 2024, 03:27 AMPutin said Tucker should have asked harder questions too, now that you mention it.  So what do you mean by "face value" in that context? All we ever have to go on with heads of state (for the most part) is what they say. It is precisely that reason that I don't really take a lot of what Trump says seriously regardless of the topic.  I also assume Biden lies every time he opens his mouth too.

 - I meant what the phrase "at face value" always means: accepting a statement superficially, without any question or doubt about its truth.
 - In adition to what heads of state say, we can also go on what policies they entact.
 - Did you see a graphic I pulled up some time ago about truth and lies? Biden was about 50/50, Trump was more lies than truth. Obama was right up there with Mother Teresa ;)

QuotePutin is a slightly different story though - he's not a gaffe machine like Biden or a loosey goosey ad libber like Trump.  He said years ago that he preferred Trump to Hillary.  Pretty sure he meant that.  Now he's saying he prefers Biden to Trump.  Going by his past comments, all you can do is assume he means what he says in this case.

^ His comment about Hillary was just confirmation of what the world already knew. If asked, Putin would prob say, "Yes, my name is Putin" but that doesn't mean "all you can do is assume he means what he says in this case." I didn't believe him in Helsinki, even though Trump did, I didn't believe him when he said that he wasn't going to invade Ukraine either.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Feb 26, 2024, 03:42 AMHe also said he'd build the wall and ultimately sidelined it in favor of other things.  NATO doesn't really work if countries, for whatever reason, all decided to just stop paying one day. If things ever actually got the point where Germany or someone else went "delinquent" (in Trump's words) then you are already done.

yeah, I know. Nothing he says matters cause Trump just be saying shit.

But Putin we should definitely take at face value, when telling us who he would prefer our president to be. Not like there's any reason to doubt his motives for doing so.

Yeah no @Nimbly9 I'm not taking Putin's statements about whom he prefers as president seriously lol. I have very little faith in Biden but we know for sure that Trump would do fuck all to help stop Putin

It's a no brainer who Putin would prefer. Let's use our brains for half a second. Even if you oppose the aid the Ukraine, there's no doubt that it goes against Russia's interest for us to arm the country they are trying to invade.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Feb 26, 2024, 03:09 AMI'm sorry that has been your experience with the BBC, jimmy jazz. I've never noticed actual anti-Birmingham stuff, but I can 100% believe that they are focused on Westminster, London and the Home Counties. My apologies because as a Londoner I'm probably guilty of the same.

I've got you down as one of the good guys mate don't worry.

Quote from: jimmy jazz on Feb 26, 2024, 01:38 PMI've got you down as one of the good guys mate don't worry.

Thank you, my friend! Right back at you.  :love:

Quote from: Marie Monday on Feb 25, 2024, 10:55 AMThat doesn't even capture the full scope of the danger though. Trump getting re-elected would be a threat to democracy in general, for everyone not just in the us but also in all of Europe, with the political trends here and Putin's warmongering. I loathe Biden but the alternative is much worse

A strong word coming from you. What accounts for this intensity?

So much to touch on. Why do you guys think Biden needs to be in a care home and Trump doesn't?

I don't even think this race is gonna as close as it was last time. Trump is going to easily slide in for the win. Hell I'm even thinking about voting for Trump because it never matters in NY. It will automatically go to Biden.

Biden's hard stance to support Israel killed his re-election chances. There is no way that Genocide Joe is going to win. The current Democrats are so splintered. People are either going to stay home or throw away their vote on some smuck third party person.

Biden doesn't have enough votes to win by just not being Trump like he did last time. He has a record for people to call into question and people are disappointed by certain aspects of it. Democrats really screwed up throwing all their eggs into one basket behind Biden. Best case scenario he passes away but Kamala is even weaker of an opponent and Trump will roll her too.

The claim that Republicans are more stickler for the rules isn't correct either with the districts they gerrymandered last time around in attempts to win and still lost because of the overturned Roe v Wade stuff. Democrats' turn to change up districts is happening this year and will benefit them a bit more. I'm more worried about the house and any Senate races that are occurring than Trump.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Feb 26, 2024, 05:14 PMSo much to touch on. Why do you guys think Biden needs to be in a care home and Trump doesn't?

Trump is old but he's otherwise fit and healthy and pretty sharp.

Biden is decrepit, can barely walk and is visibly not right. You cannot see his gaffes and think anything else surely. There is absolutely no way Biden should be in office even if his policies and leadership were amazing.

Quote from: Jwb on Feb 26, 2024, 03:28 AMi agree it's hyperbolic to say there "most likely won't be anymore elections" if Trump wins, but I'm kind of puzzled about the next paragraph.

1) what do you mean by republicans so frequently lose elections because they are too "by the books" when compared to the democrats?

2) what rules did the democrats bend with regard to Covid and the 2020 elections?

Republicans are favored electorally in our system by the sheer way that it is set up. From the way the senate is structured to the electoral college, republicans are benefited by all of that. They so frequently lose elections because despite being propped up institutionally, they are pushing essentially an ideology that is on  its last legs. Trump and his complete capture of the right in a few short years is a perfect symptom of that.

I was referring mostly to universal mail-in ballots and the easing of mail-in restrictions. Before 2020, a voter would have to request an absentee ballot and get a witness to verify their identify in order to vote by mail. In 2020, nine states + DC mailed out ballots to everyone on their voter rolls, while others suspended the requirement for a witness. With the easing of mail-in restirctions, progressive Dems in many states sued to ease security measures for mail-in ballots, such as the aforementioned witness requirement and signature requirement - and in some cases, allowing ballots to arrive days after the election. None of this was illegal by the way, I'm just saying Democrats, at least in recent times, are more effective about using the existing rules to maneuever changes to benefit them electorally - while Republicans can hardly mount an effective ballot harvesting operation in comparison. The link below details more about the changes the Democrats were able to enact in 2020 - and as this article suggests, the Republicans, like the Democrats, will need to learn how to best exploit these rules if they want to have any chance of winning:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3811483-to-win-republicans-must-embrace-the-new-election-rules/


Republicans being what I'll call 'graceful losers' in comparison to Democrats and too 'by the books': if we look at 2016 for example, Clinton's campaign paid a foreign national (Christopher Steele) to produce a bunk dossier about Trump and his 'collusion with Russia' that the Democrats used as pretext to conduct about 2 years of investigation into Trump and his campaign, which also served to effectively undermine the legitimacy of his presidency. The Democrats then, after all that fizzled out after the release of the Mueller report, impeached him twice. Republicans in contrast, tend to write strongly worded letters and are 'looking into' impeaching Biden. And this doesn't even get into all the shenanigans with the intelligence agencies and their coordination with social media companies during the 2020 election that benefitted Biden and the Democrats. Republicans, at least before Trump, seemed to be fine with letting the Democrats dominate and control the narrative, and play defense. One of the first examples that popped in my head was Mitt Romney's '47% comments':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney_2012_presidential_campaign#47%_comment

Whereas Trump would often double-down on whatever the media outrage was about his comments, Romney relented and went on a mini-apology tour for what he said (in politics, apology tours rarely work and often serve as a death knell, because regardless of the apology, what was said will continue to be used in political attacks by your opponent). Hell, in that election, Obama and the Democrats effectively used all technology and social media at their disposal to campaign. Romney and his campaign did none of that. Republicans tend to need to play catch-up and defense with Democrats, and maybe that's foundationally attributable to the difference in ideology - Republicans look to the past and want to 'conserve' what we have while Democrats often look to the future and want to make changes and improvements. As a culture and society, we need elements of both to be successful (and ideally, additional parties that serve as legitimate alternatives - but we all know that won't happen).

You're right that the electoral college does benefit Republicans, at least today. I didn't know this, but found it interesting - there's only been 5 US Presidential elections in which the candidate who wins the popular vote didn't ultimately win the presidency (because of the electoral college and in some cases, involvement of the Supreme Court) - Trump in 2016 being the most recent example - Bush in 2000 being the example before that, and prior to that, it hadn't happened since 1888:

List of United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_in_which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_vote#:~:text=popular%20vote%20%2D%20Wikipedia-,List%20of%20United%20States%20presidential%20elections%20in,winner%20lost%20the%20popular%20vote&text=Comparison%20of%20the%20presidential%20elections,winner)%20lost%20the%20popular%20vote.)

To your point about the GOP being 'an ideology on its last legs' and that being a primary reason they lose, I don't necessarily disagree. I think if the Republicans just gave up on the abortion issue, they'd take away one of the biggest advantages Democrats have. But they don't seem to want to do that. Trump, at least now, has appeared to capture the Republican party - and we've discussed this before, but it will be interesting to see how different the party is after Trump is out of the picture - will they go back to their old ways and talking points, or will Trump's differing vision of the GOP become a seemingly permanent fixture?

Sorry for the novel, I'll try to respond to you @Lisnaholic later - but I think some of what I wrote above will be part of my response.

Quote from: jadis on Feb 26, 2024, 03:52 PMA strong word coming from you. What accounts for this intensity?

really? I feel like I often phrase things pretty strongly. I just loathe him because he's a corrupt liberal creep, I guess in the same way that I hate all politicians of that type, except that he has an extra ick-factor to me that's completely irrational and based on vibes. I feel exactly the same way about him as about Dutch (former-ish) prime minister Mark Rutte, another icky corrupt liberal creep

If RFKJ doesn't win I'm setting myself on fire in front of the Israeli embassy (https://i.postimg.cc/fy999YkX/YiDVdfR.png)

Quote from: jimmy jazz on Feb 26, 2024, 05:18 PMTrump is old but he's otherwise fit and healthy and pretty sharp.

Biden is decrepit, can barely walk and is visibly not right. You cannot see his gaffes and think anything else surely. There is absolutely no way Biden should be in office even if his policies and leadership were amazing.

Quote from: Marie Monday on Feb 26, 2024, 05:30 PMreally? I feel like I often phrase things pretty strongly. I just loathe him because he's a corrupt liberal creep, I guess in the same way that I hate all politicians of that type, except that he has an extra ick-factor to me that's completely irrational and based on vibes. I feel exactly the same way about him as about Dutch (former-ish) prime minister Mark Rutte, another icky corrupt liberal creep

Ehh...I dunno that I'd call it completely irrational.

(https://www.thetimes.co.uk/imageserver/image/%2Fmethode%2Ftimes%2Fprod%2Fweb%2Fbin%2Fb2467970-5578-11e9-a8f5-a9ee11ff7e6d.png?crop=1500%2C1200%2C0%2C0)

I agree with @DJChameleon . At this point I can only hope for the best but prepare for the worst. Speaking as a trans person I think it's a good time to make plans for DIY treatments and potentially relocating.

I cannot cling to a country whose president is actively committing direct harm to myself and my people to thunderous applause. If I were granted the opportunity to leave I would do so without hesitation.

Quote from: Mindy on Feb 26, 2024, 05:31 PMIf RFKJ doesn't win I'm setting myself on fire in front of the Israeli embassy (https://i.postimg.cc/fy999YkX/YiDVdfR.png)

I like dark jokes but literally too soon. You know the airman died right?

RIP.

Quote from: SGR on Feb 26, 2024, 05:58 PMEhh...I dunno that I'd call it completely irrational.

(https://www.thetimes.co.uk/imageserver/image/%2Fmethode%2Ftimes%2Fprod%2Fweb%2Fbin%2Fb2467970-5578-11e9-a8f5-a9ee11ff7e6d.png?crop=1500%2C1200%2C0%2C0)

This is rather old information, but I figured some may not have heard about it. The 'Ashley Biden diary'. I'm not sure why it was not a bigger story, as different news reports seem to confirm that the diary was real, was Ashley Biden's, and two people plead guilty to stealing it and they're prosecuting them for it.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/25/guilty-trafficking-ashley-biden-diary-00053770

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/22/us/politics/aimee-harris-ashley-biden-diary-sentencing.html

The diary is on the Library of Congress's archive site and can be found here:

https://ia803405.us.archive.org/20/items/ashley-biden-diary/Ashley_Biden_Diary_Original_10_15_2021.pdf

Page 25 in the PDF of the diary above is the one about Joe Biden taking showers with his daughter, among other really gross things:

(https://media.scored.co/post/QSx2MLu3DO18.png)

Quote from: DJChameleon on Feb 26, 2024, 06:15 PMI like dark jokes but literally too soon. You know the airman died right?

RIP.

yeah, it's sad. He didn't seem like the "bout bout" type too. Probably should have thought it over. Fucked up how an israeli embassy agent pointed a gun at him the whole time he was burning alive.

yeah maybe that joke was too soon too, my bad.

The mossad twitter page made fun of him right away! it was messed up, they were the ultra 'too soon'.

Quote from: Mindy on Feb 26, 2024, 06:23 PMyeah, it's sad. He didn't seem like the "bout bout" type too. Probably should have thought it over. Fucked up how an israeli embassy agent pointed a gun at him the whole time he was burning alive.

yeah maybe that joke was too soon too, my bad.

The mossad twitter page made fun of him right away! it was messed up, they were the ultra 'too soon'.

I think I would have been more okay with the joke if he was still alive and just severely injured but him passing away which I didn't learn about til this morning is a bit much. 🤔

Quote from: SGR on Feb 26, 2024, 06:17 PMThis is rather old information, but I figured some may not have heard about it. The 'Ashley Biden diary'. I'm not sure why it was not a bigger story, as different news reports seem to confirm that the diary was real, was Ashley Biden's, and two people plead guilty to stealing it and they're prosecuting them for it.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/25/guilty-trafficking-ashley-biden-diary-00053770

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/22/us/politics/aimee-harris-ashley-biden-diary-sentencing.html

The diary is on the Library of Congress's archive site and can be found here:

https://ia803405.us.archive.org/20/items/ashley-biden-diary/Ashley_Biden_Diary_Original_10_15_2021.pdf

Page 25 in the PDF of the diary above is the one about Joe Biden taking showers with his daughter, among other really gross things:

(https://media.scored.co/post/QSx2MLu3DO18.png)

How scandalous! A parent taking a shower with their child woopty fucking do.

Quote from: SGR on Feb 26, 2024, 05:58 PMEhh...I dunno that I'd call it completely irrational.

(https://www.thetimes.co.uk/imageserver/image/%2Fmethode%2Ftimes%2Fprod%2Fweb%2Fbin%2Fb2467970-5578-11e9-a8f5-a9ee11ff7e6d.png?crop=1500%2C1200%2C0%2C0)

Smelly old nonce.

Him, not you.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Feb 26, 2024, 06:27 PMHow scandalous! A parent taking a shower with their child woopty fucking do.

Well besides the fact that she was supposedly 10 or 11 when this happened. She was old enough that even she said in the diary it was 'probably not appropriate'.

I don't mind taking showers with my 8 year old and am gonna guess I won't mind when she's 10/11 either, but I also wouldn't be surprised if people think that's inappropriate.

For myself, I think it's a symptom of an unhealthy sexualizing of everything when naked = sexual, whatever context.

Quote from: Guybrush on Feb 26, 2024, 07:19 PMI don't mind taking showers with my 8 year old and am gonna guess I won't mind when she's 10/11 either, but I also wouldn't be surprised if people think that's inappropriate.

For myself, I think it's a symptom of an unhealthy sexualizing of everything when naked = sexual, whatever context.

That's fair - a cultural difference. I'm American, and any baths I had with my parents ended so early that I don't remember any of them.

When it comes to Biden, I'm predisposed to think the worst of it given his propensity for sniffing little girls, but that's not fair.

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Feb 26, 2024, 05:56 PM

(https://i.postimg.cc/Mp112m1P/JB2.jpg)

Jimmy Dore recently said: "Biden is as sharp as Kindergarten scisscors, and he's as focused as a Bigfoot video!"  :laughing:

Quote from: DJChameleon on Feb 26, 2024, 05:14 PMSo much to touch on. Why do you guys think Biden needs to be in a care home and Trump doesn't?

I really like this guy's videos. He's not a Republican or Democrat cheerleader and he's always come off to me as pretty level-headed and unbiased. His video on the topic might be worth a watch, as I agree with most of what he says.


That being said, Trump really is too old to be running (we have a minimum age to be president, we should have a maximum, and I'd suggest something in the range of 70 - 75), even if he doesn't display as many signs of mental decline as Biden does. Of course, because he's running against Biden who's even older, he can mostly avoid this obvious criticism and line of attack, as long as he doesn't make egregious verbal mistakes.

Quote from: SGR on Feb 26, 2024, 10:58 PMI really like this guy's videos. He's not a Republican or Democrat cheerleader and he's always come off to me as pretty level-headed and unbiased. His video on the topic might be worth a watch, as I agree with most of what he says.

That being said, Trump really is too old to be running (we have a minimum age to be president, we should have a maximum, and I'd suggest something in the range of 70 - 75), even if he doesn't display as many signs of mental decline as Biden does. Of course, because he's running against Biden who's even older, he can mostly avoid this obvious criticism and line of attack, as long as he doesn't make egregious verbal mistakes.

Funny you made the comment about the maximum age limit. I made a FB post about that like three weeks ago. The age limit should also apply to members of Congress as well. This is bordering on elder abuse. Let these old people go home and spend time as grandpas and grandmas. We don't need this geriatric population dedicating policies for the younger generations that they won't even be around to see how badly they fuck us up.  The max age should be similar to retirement age. Whatever the current retirement age is to apply for social security should be the same age for elected officials to no longer be able to hold office.

I'm going to check that video out later but I saw this video this morning showcasing Trump's just rambling nonsense it is even more than his usual ramblings. He's definitely in mental decline as well. The only difference is that he isn't tripping over words but he's spewing straight non sense.

All you have to do is watch the clip showcase in the first 10 mins or so of this video.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Feb 27, 2024, 10:24 PMFunny you made the comment about the maximum age limit. I made a FB post about that like three weeks ago. The age limit should also apply to members of Congress as well. This is bordering on elder abuse. Let these old people go home and spend time as grandpas and grandmas. We don't need this geriatric population dedicating policies for the younger generations that they won't even be around to see how badly they fuck us up.  The max age should be similar to retirement age. Whatever the current retirement age is to apply for social security should be the same age for elected officials to no longer be able to hold office.

100% agreed. It only makes sense, doesn't it? If we are willing to generalize all people under age 35 as not having enough experience or wisdom to lead our country, there must be an upper limit in which we generalize all people over a certain age as just too much of a liability because of physical and mental decline to lead our country. Retirement age (which I think is 65) might be a little too strict (imo), but I could get behind 70. And yeah, apply it congress and the senate too so we don't have doddering fools who look like they're on the verge of a heart attack leading our chambers of congress - Pelosi should be out and so should McConnell:

(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/002/630/016/474.gif)

Quote from: DJChameleon on Feb 27, 2024, 10:24 PMI'm going to check that video out later but I saw this video this morning showcasing Trump's just rambling nonsense it is even more than his usual ramblings. He's definitely in mental decline as well. The only difference is that he isn't tripping over words but he's spewing straight non sense.

All you have to do is watch the clip showcase in the first 10 mins or so of this video.

I watched the first 10 minutes, and I dunno man, I definitely agree that Trump has lost a step or two, especially since 2016. He seems a lot more tired and drained in his speeches, and I think all the campaigning is wearing on him more now than it did then, but most of those clips just seem to be typical Trump ramblings, without as much energy. He's had this strange non-sequitir way of speaking since he began campaigning in 2016 when he doesn't use a teleprompter. He pinballs from one topic to another, back to something else, and then back to his original topic like some kind of weird verbal fever dream. Bragging how popular his mugshot is, bragging how black people loved his mugshot, rambling about how persecuted he is - weird tangents about 'migrant crime' somehow being different from other crime and deserving its own special designation, etc. But we're not seeing him appear lost on stage, not seeing him trip over sandbags or stairs, not seeing him ask where dead congressmen are, forgetting who he's singing Happy Birthday to, etc. But one thing that is pretty apparent is how quickly he can speak, even now - his speeches get wildly tangential, but just the speed and frequency with how he speaks shows how quickly his mind still works - compare that to how Biden regularly appears to struggle to translate his thoughts to words, how slowly he speaks, it's obviously becoming much more difficult for him - even if Trump goes on sporadic tangents, he usually finishes his thoughts, whereas Biden has often struggled to complete his thoughts, abandoning them mid-sentence ("anyways..."):


Regardless, I agree - Trump should be too old to run, and Biden should be too old to run - but in my opinion, Biden is showing his age more than Trump is. The frustrating thing is, these old wrinkly ass motherfuckers are never going to pass legislation that would put them out of a job. Most of these people probably wouldn't have a clue how to survive without a government job. 

Immigration Surges to Top of Most Important Problem List (https://news.gallup.com/poll/611135/immigration-surges-top-important-problem-list.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication)

Quote from: SGR on Feb 28, 2024, 03:40 PMImmigration Surges to Top of Most Important Problem List (https://news.gallup.com/poll/611135/immigration-surges-top-important-problem-list.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication)

^ That's an ace card for Trump.


And this is the first time I can recall a candidate "unsuspending" a suspended campaign...

Marianne Williamson unsuspends her presidential campaign after placing 3rd in Michigan (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/marianne-williamson-unsuspends-presidential-campaign-rcna140882)

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Feb 28, 2024, 04:50 PM^ That's an ace card for Trump.


And this is the first time I can recall a candidate "unsuspending" a suspended campaign...

Marianne Williamson unsuspends her presidential campaign after placing 3rd in Michigan (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/marianne-williamson-unsuspends-presidential-campaign-rcna140882)

She must've seen a different future in her Crystal Ball after the Michigan primary results came in:

(https://img.thedailybeast.com/image/upload/c_crop,d_placeholder_euli9k,h_1687,w_3000,x_0,y_0/dpr_2.0/c_limit,w_600/f_jpg/fl_lossy,q_auto/v1564599737/190731-weill-marianne-tease_rysyxy)

That said, I'll always love her for her fire collab with Donny:

Quote from: SGR on Feb 27, 2024, 11:01 PMPelosi should be out and so should McConnell 

Mitch McConnell, 82, cries as he STEPS DOWN as longest-serving Senate leader in history: GOP grandee addresses surprisingly empty floor and says 'father time remains undefeated' (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13137055/mitch-mcconnell-resigns-republican-senate-leader.html)

Impeccable timing!

I just came here to post the same thing but yeah it's about damn time and also I don't think 65 is too strict.

Matter of fact they should open it up and have people be able to run at 30 to 65 instead of 35 to 70.

If they feel like 65 is a good enough age for retirement for the general public then it should apply to all government positions as well.

Kick their asses out at 65.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Feb 28, 2024, 08:32 PMI just came here to post the same thing but yeah it's about damn time and also I don't think 65 is too strict.

Matter of fact they should open it up and have people be able to run at 30 to 65 instead of 35 to 70.

If they feel like 65 is a good enough age for retirement for the general public then it should apply to all government positions as well.

Kick their asses out at 65.

I'm not so fixated on it that I'd argue the exact number. At this point, if they put almost any maximum age restriction on it that's 75 or less, I'd consider it a win. If you're older than fucking Leonid Brezhnev was when he died, you're too old to be leading the free world, I know that much. And yet, thanks to our system, that's going to be our reality unless something unexpected happens in this upcoming election.

Why doesn't the Democrat party kick Biden out while they can still get someone else to be the candidate? Looks like Trump is nailed on to win. Surely they know this. They're just gonna let Biden go up and lose? :laughing:

Quote from: jimmy jazz on Feb 29, 2024, 12:04 AMWhy doesn't the Democrat party kick Biden out while they can still get someone else to be the candidate? Looks like Trump is nailed on to win. Surely they know this. They're just gonna let Biden go up and lose? :laughing:

If they decide to do the switch-a-roo, it'll be at or close to convention time in August. And of course, it'll be for some 'totally unexpected downturn in Biden's health'.

The other difficult part is - who will that other candidate be? If Michelle Obama doesn't want to do it (as seems likely), then it becomes much more difficult to find a clear successor.

Donald Trump REMOVED from Illinois Republican primary ballots after judge orders him to be disqualified over role in January 6 riot (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13138679/Donald-Trump-REMOVED-Illinois-Republican-insurrection.html)

Not like it'll really matter in that state, but I expect Trump to get a small boost in his polling anyways.

Supreme Court will decide if Trump is immune from prosecution: Justices agree to take up case and delay Jack Smith's election interference trial (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13138219/Supreme-Court-decide-Trump-immune-prosecution-Judges-agree-case-delay-Jack-Smiths-election-subversion-trial.html)

Of course, while I agree with the idea of many politicians being way too old, it's nothing new. From my Sherlock Holmes novella...

 "I have, as you know, Watson, the greatest respect for the law," he said, lighting his pipe and shaking his head. "But this idea of men who are so far past working age that they should be in a bathchair watching the sunset ,rather than trying to deciper the case of another unfortunate who happens to fall to their tender mercies, is something that has long been at the root, I believe, of many a wrong verdict, miscarriage of justice, and, sad to say, innocent man hanged." He looked up sharply. "The whole system of justice needs a complete overhaul, but with the stranglehold the aristrocracy and nobility has on appointments, this seems to me something which will not happen in my lifetime, nor in yours."

I arched an eyebrow. I had never taken my friend to be a revolutionary or an activist, though I could not fault his reasoning. Too many old men who should have retired ten years ago were still practicing on the bench, many often having to be nudged awake during a case. It really was a shocking state of affairs, but had been the norm for so long now that I feared Holmes was right when he prophesied gloomily that it would take longer to change than either of us had time on this earth.

I fully agree that the Democrats are dicing with electoral defeat. Why in the name of the Great Pixie can't they see that they MUST look beyond Bedtime Biden for a serious challenger to el Trumpo? Have they learned nothing from 2016? You can hear the nasty sarcastic laughter ringing through the halls of Mar-a-Lago if you listen hard enough.

Quote from: Trollheart on Mar 03, 2024, 01:28 AMOf course, while I agree with the idea of many politicians being way too old, it's nothing new. From my Sherlock Holmes novella...

 "I have, as you know, Watson, the greatest respect for the law," he said, lighting his pipe and shaking his head. "But this idea of men who are so far past working age that they should be in a bathchair watching the sunset ,rather than trying to deciper the case of another unfortunate who happens to fall to their tender mercies, is something that has long been at the root, I believe, of many a wrong verdict, miscarriage of justice, and, sad to say, innocent man hanged." He looked up sharply. "The whole system of justice needs a complete overhaul, but with the stranglehold the aristrocracy and nobility has on appointments, this seems to me something which will not happen in my lifetime, nor in yours."

I arched an eyebrow. I had never taken my friend to be a revolutionary or an activist, though I could not fault his reasoning. Too many old men who should have retired ten years ago were still practicing on the bench, many often having to be nudged awake during a case. It really was a shocking state of affairs, but had been the norm for so long now that I feared Holmes was right when he prophesied gloomily that it would take longer to change than either of us had time on this earth.

I fully agree that the Democrats are dicing with electoral defeat. Why in the name of the Great Pixie can't they see that they MUST look beyond Bedtime Biden for a serious challenger to el Trumpo? Have they learned nothing from 2016? You can hear the nasty sarcastic laughter ringing through the halls of Mar-a-Lago if you listen hard enough.

The challenging part is - he's the incumbent (who will naturally enjoy an incumbent advantage) - if they had a clear succesion plan, they would've been fine with real primaries after Biden announced that he'd not be seeking a second term - but since he's apparently running for real, they'd need to switch him at or near the convention - and even doing that, regardless of the candidate, will look suspect. But assume they do it, who would or should they replace him with, if we assume Michelle Obama isn't interested?

Just replace him with someone under 60 who has a relatively clean history. Is it really that difficult? I don't know many Democrats by name but there must be someone boring, inoffensive and low risk to pick.

In a roundabout way it seems like the fact so many Democrat voters are 'Anyone But Trump' is going to hurt the party and ironically get Trump elected again. The party seems fine with going with Biden because it worked last time as so many people voted against Trump.

I just had a look at the senators on Wiki.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Padilla

Alex Padilla 4 Prez.

Not fat, not bald. Not old. Can play the ethnic minority card. Described as moderate. Seems to support the things Democrats care about.

Biden out, Padilla in 8)

What about AOC? I mean, what do the Dems do when they realise Walmart no longer make the batteries that power Biden? They can't seriously be sitting there saying "That'll do, pig. That'll do." Republicans must be pissing themselves laughing. Maybe a clone of Obama?

Quote from: Trollheart on Mar 03, 2024, 05:34 PMWhat about AOC? I mean, what do the Dems do when they realise Walmart no longer make the batteries that power Biden? They can't seriously be sitting there saying "That'll do, pig. That'll do." Republicans must be pissing themselves laughing. Maybe a clone of Obama?

AOC would have a hard time winning over moderate(corporate) democrats. She's a bit left of them known as progressive and the establishment democrats won't get behind a progressive democrat.

I'd get behind her.  :love:  :love:
Seriously though: is the democrat party so dead that they can't even wheel out one decent candidate?

Quote from: Trollheart on Mar 03, 2024, 06:55 PMI'd get behind her.  :love:  :love:
Seriously though: is the democrat party so dead that they can't even wheel out one decent candidate?

I disagree with AOC on multiple different things politically, but regardless, DJ is right - she's a bit too far left for most American moderates. Republicans would paint her as a socialist/communist. AOC is still young and figuring out exactly how the game (politics) is played. I've said before that I think she will become President some day, and I stand by that (also probably the first woman president), but before that happens, I think AOC will soften her views, improve her communication/messaging, and run a campaign that corporate Democrats can support (in many ways, similar to Obama's first run). But just having her as the face of the Democratic party would give it some much needed life. If she was more of a center-left Dem, she'd wipe the floor with Trump. Her time will come.

(https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5d25f1f6c107e5000918e49d/master/pass/TNY-AOC.jpg)

Quote from: jimmy jazz on Mar 03, 2024, 05:10 PMJust replace him with someone under 60 who has a relatively clean history. Is it really that difficult? I don't know many Democrats by name but there must be someone boring, inoffensive and low risk to pick.

In a roundabout way it seems like the fact so many Democrat voters are 'Anyone But Trump' is going to hurt the party and ironically get Trump elected again. The party seems fine with going with Biden because it worked last time as so many people voted against Trump.

I just had a look at the senators on Wiki.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Padilla

Alex Padilla 4 Prez.

Not fat, not bald. Not old. Can play the ethnic minority card. Described as moderate. Seems to support the things Democrats care about.

Biden out, Padilla in 8)

I like the thought, but generally, picking some random senator who doesn't appear to have a lot of baggage isn't usually a winning strategy for president. A lot of different things come into play, but to become president, you generally need to be charismatic and a good speaker as well (and usually, you need some kind of connections). I don't think the Democrats would beat Trump just because their candidate is younger (though that certainly would help, considering they're now in a position where they can't really criticize Trump's age without drawing attention to Biden) - the candidate would need to inspire people to go out and vote. Love or hate Trump, there's no denying that Trump supporters would walk through glass to vote for him in 2024. Biden supporters? Ehhhh.......

Is Biden charismatic or a good speaker? Is Padilla any worse?

"Vote Padilla and he'll buy you a beer."

"Never fear, Padilla is here!"

Slogans sorted.

Quote from: jimmy jazz on Mar 03, 2024, 10:55 PMIs Biden charismatic or a good speaker? Is Padilla any worse?

"Vote Padilla and he'll buy you a beer."

"Never fear, Padilla is here!"

Slogans sorted.

He can be charismatic, but he's no longer a good speaker - he used to be a decent speaker.

Unfortunately, I think it's likely that Biden was selected because the people really pulling the strings have the goods on him - in other words, he's in their pocket and controllable. Bernie, as an example, I doubt he has any baggage like that, therefore, he wouldn't be controllable.

Supreme Court is expected to rule on whether Donald Trump can hold office TOMORROW - just in time for Super Tuesday (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13152173/Supreme-Court-expected-rule-Donald-Trump.html)

Supreme Court puts Trump back on Colorado Republican primary ballot (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/04/supreme-court-rules-in-trump-colorado-ballot-case.html)

Happy Super Tuesday everyone!

Here's one less mystery for us to think about, I suppose:

Michelle Obama's office says the former first lady 'will not be running for president' in 2024 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/michelle-obama-former-first-lady-not-running-president-2024-rcna141767)

Wildcard picks to replace Biden, that would really get the popcorn buttered:

-Mark Cuban
-Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson

Trump wins ELEVEN STATES to Nikki Haley's ONE in Super Tuesday steamrolling: Ex-President almost certain to face-off with Joe Biden in November - but GOP rival has 'NO plans' to concede (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13161655/super-tuesday-virginia-vermont-polls-close-voting-results-trump-haley.html)

Things are still in flux and it appears to me that Nikki will win Vermont over Trump, for what that's worth.

Trump says his Super Tuesday rout is the most 'conclusive' in Mar-a-Lago victory speech where he ignores Nikki Haley again and tears into Biden for his 'secret migrant flights' and going to the beach as he prepares for 2024 showdown  (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13160429/super-tuesday-donald-trump-mar-lago.html)

And now it's official - Nikki Haley is out, which I believe leaves Trump defacto unopposed for the Republican nomination.

Nikki Haley to Exit Republican Presidential Race - Wall Street Journal (https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/nikki-haley-drops-out-2024-presidential-election-625277ca)

Who is Jason Palmer? Biden loses the American Samoa Democratic caucuses to entrepreneur (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jason-palmer-biden-loses-american-samoa-democratic-caucuses/story?id=107832052)

"Running Out Of Options" - Supreme Court Keeps Trump on Ballot Infuriating the Establishment

Joe Biden says he was WRONG to describe Laken Riley's accused murderer as an 'illegal' and vows to never treat migrants with 'disrespect' (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13178043/joe-biden-wrong-laken-riley-illegal.html)

Well that's nice - an illegal alien is let into the country by Biden's administration - said illegal alien bashes a young 22 year woman's skull in and kills her - Biden botches her name in his SOTU speech and refers to him as an 'illegal alien' - and now went back on TV to apologize for referring to him as an 'illegal alien' when he believes he should've used 'undocumented person' and promises to show them more respect in the future. Nice to see Joe's got his priorities in order.

Quote from: SGR on Mar 10, 2024, 01:44 AMJoe Biden says he was WRONG to describe Laken Riley's accused murderer as an 'illegal' and vows to never treat migrants with 'disrespect' (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13178043/joe-biden-wrong-laken-riley-illegal.html)

Well that's nice - an illegal alien is let into the country by Biden's administration - said illegal alien bashes a young 22 year woman's skull in and kills her - Biden botches her name in his SOTU speech and refers to him as an 'illegal alien' - and now went back on TV to apologize for referring to him as an 'illegal alien' when he believes he should've used 'undocumented person' and promises to show them more respect in the future. Nice to see Joe's got his priorities in order.

Illegal alien term is outdated though regardless of what said undocumented person did

Quote from: DJChameleon on Mar 10, 2024, 06:15 AMIllegal alien term is outdated though regardless of what said undocumented person did

It's not outdated. It describes accurately and succinctly exactly what he was. Democrats want to make it 'outdated' though. Changing minds through the manipulation of language.

But let's assume that is true for the sake of argument.

Correcting an outdated term applicable to a murderer who shouldn't have been in the country in the first place should be the priority over expressing remorse for a dead, murdered American and explaining and addressing how policy changes will be enacted to mitigate this from happening in the future?

Quote from: SGR on Mar 10, 2024, 06:31 AMCorrecting an outdated term applicable to a murderer who shouldn't have been in the country in the first place should be the priority over expressing remorse for a dead, murdered American and explaining and addressing how policy changes will be enacted to mitigate this from happening in the future?

It is outdated because people are humans not aliens. It doesn't describe them accurately. It just continues the xenophobic terminology to fear monger people into hating undocumented people.

It's not an either or thing. Both can AND should be done.

Correcting the term AND discussing solutions to prevent it from happening again through policy changes.

Republicans are on a full scale war against migrants and their messaging is the type that is trying to divide the lower/middle class when they should be joining together against the upper class and fighting to get the uber rich taxed fairly.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Mar 10, 2024, 01:59 PMIt is outdated because people are humans not aliens. It doesn't describe them accurately. It just continues the xenophobic terminology to fear monger people into hating undocumented people.

It's not an either or thing. Both can AND should be done.

Correcting the term AND discussing solutions to prevent it from happening again through policy changes.

Republicans are on a full scale war against migrants and their messaging is the type that is trying to divide the lower/middle class when they should be joining together against the upper class and fighting to get the uber rich taxed fairly.

The evolution of language and terms into pejoratives is kind of interesting. I think one of the more obvious examples is 'retard'. What once was meant simply as 'delayed development' and was applied to those with delayed mental development became a term used to insult others ("What are you, retarded?").

I don't necessarily find 'illegal alien' or 'illegal immigrant' to be cut from the same cloth though. It is an accurate term (much of the time) - and unlike other terms that evolve into pejoratives that necessarily refer to humanity or personhood of someone, this term simply means that someone is a foreign national who's current immigration status in the country is illegal. That's true in this guy's case (José Antonio Ibarra).

I'd argue that, often times, 'undocumented person' is much less precise and accurate term. It makes it sound like these people either don't have any papers or form of identification (which is not true, as many of them have birth certificates (from another country), passport (from another country), international drivers license, etc), or that we (the U.S. / ICE / Department of Homeland Security) haven't documented them somehow - which is also often not true. Let's take a look at the suspect in this case for example - and I'll just refer to the Wikipedia article on the matter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Laken_Riley):

QuoteU.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) confirmed that Ibarra is not a U.S. citizen and was caught crossing the border but was released into the United States.

José Antonio Ibarra, a 26-year-old Venezuelan, had entered the United States illegally in September 2022, crossing the US's southern border with Mexico near El Paso, Texas. According to Jeffrey Clark, the chief of UGA police, Ibarra lived in an apartment complex about 1 mile (1.6 km) from the wooded area where Riley's body was found. Ibarra had been previously arrested by both federal and state officials in multiple jurisdictions. He had a bench warrant issued for his arrest in December 2023 after failing to appear in court in a shoplifting case in Georgia.

So in his case (and many others), he was caught trying to cross the border, processed (documented), and released into the US anyways. He's had multiple arrests, both state and federal, and was processed/documented. He had a bench warrant issued for his arrest in late 2023 for shoplifting - we knew exactly who he was, we knew where he was from, we knew where lived - he wasn't 'undocumented' - his immigration status here was simply illegal.

But it goes to show that there probably isn't one term that could accurately encompass all the different kinds of scenarios of being in the country illegally. For example, someone is here to work on a work VISA. They stay past the timeframe the VISA allows them to - are they an 'illegal immigrant'? Well, not really - their presence in the US might now be illegal, but they didn't immigrate here - they were here to work on a work VISA. Are they an 'undocumented person'? No - because they went through proper channels to be here, we've documented them - they have their own documentation - they just exceeded the length of time they were supposed to be here. Perhaps 'Fraudulent Traveler' would be a better term in this case, not sure.

But there are multitudes of ways/circumstances someone could be in the country illegally - a catch-all term might be 'Individual Unlawfully Present in the US' - but that doesn't have any zip to it, and it's too long for politicians/TV pundits. Neither 'undocumented person' or 'illegal immigrant' convey every case accurately.

I agree with you though, the terminology used should be done responsibly by politicians and those in the media (yeah, I know, keep dreaming). It's irresponsible when Trump uses the term 'illegal immigrants' and then says 'they're poisoning the blood of our nation' - it's not necessarily the term itself that's irresponsible, but the context language it's couched in.

And my criticism for Biden isn't that he wants to double back and use a different term, it's that he did it with an (alleged) murderer. The messaging and optics are just poor. I could be wrong, but I highly doubt a swing voter saw Joe Biden's SOTU speech where he referred to the (alleged) murderer as an 'illegal immigrant' and thought: "He really should be calling them 'undocumented persons', this language is just irresponsible" and was happy to see his retraction. Immigration is a big issue going into the election with the majority of Americans (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/07/state-of-the-union-2024-where-americans-stand-on-the-economy-immigration-and-other-key-issues/), and Biden had an opportunity to appear strong on that issue; when asked, he could've said: "No, I don't regret calling him an 'illegal immigrant' - he was in this country illegally and what he did was illegal". Instead, he looked weak and provided Trump with free ammunition.

Quote from: SGR on Mar 10, 2024, 01:44 AMNice to see Joe's got his priorities in order.

Biden's SOTU speech lasted over an hour, coherent and on-topic throughout. With three posts and a link focusing on one word in the speech, perhaps you should be checking your own priorities, SGR: are they, by any chance, Biden-bashing at any opportunity ?

Quote from: SGR on Mar 10, 2024, 06:31 AMCorrecting an outdated term applicable to a murderer who shouldn't have been in the country in the first place should be the priority over expressing remorse for a dead, murdered American and explaining and addressing how policy changes will be enacted to mitigate this from happening in the future?

^ In fact, he did both of those things in the speech that I heard, clearly laying out how a bi-partisan proposal to provide extra staffing levels, facilities etc at the border is there, waiting for implementation, but speaker Johnson is blocking even a discussion about it on the House floor.

This is the shortest summary of Biden's speech that I could find on YouTube, if anyone wants to check the overall impression that it left on these Fox commentators:-


EDIT: just read your long post about the sad case of this woman being killed by J A Ibarra, and you make a lotof good points, SGR. You are obviously well-informed on the details, and I can understand the sense of outrage about a guy who just slips through the system without being stopped by the authorities. Same thing often happens in the UK too, with violent criminals "known to the police" who still end up committing some atrocity or other.
(How many are home-grown violent types and how many are immigrants I couldn't say.)

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Mar 10, 2024, 10:50 PMBiden's SOTU speech lasted over an hour, coherent and on-topic throughout. With three posts and a link focusing on one word in the speech, perhaps you should be checking your own priorities, SGR: are they, by any chance, Biden-bashing at any opportunity ?

To be fair Lisna, you're right, I'm not Biden's biggest fan. But the three posts are because I'm having a discussion with DJ about it, and in doing so, I've learned more (until I started digging deeper, I didn't realize just how many different ways someone could be in the country illegally), so it hasn't just been about bashing Biden, the initial criticism opened up a wider discussion that, ideally, would help us all learn a little bit more than we currently do. And to be fair, it wasn't just one word (term) in a speech, it was from one of the more memorable moments in the speech that ended up getting talked about widely. To Biden's credit, he did much better in the speech than I thought he would.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Mar 10, 2024, 10:50 PM^ In fact, he did both of those things in the speech that I heard, clearly laying out how a bi-partisan proposal to provide extra staffing levels, facilities etc at the border is there, waiting for implementation, but speaker Johnson is blocking even a discussion about it on the House floor.

This is the shortest summary of Biden's speech that I could find on YouTube, if anyone wants to check the overall impression that it left on these Fox commentators:-

Admittedly, I haven't watched the video yet, but I assumed (when I was watching the speech) that this was in reference to the previous border bill that the Republicans blocked - is that not the case?

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Mar 10, 2024, 10:50 PMEDIT: just read your long post about the sad case of this woman being killed by J A Ibarra, and you make a lotof good points, SGR. You are obviously well-informed on the details, and I can understand the sense of outrage about a guy who just slips through the system without being stopped by the authorities. Same thing often happens in the UK too, with violent criminals "known to the police" who still end up committing some atrocity or other.
(How many are home-grown violent types and how many are immigrants I couldn't say.)

Thanks Lisna, yeah, like I said, I don't care if people want to use the term 'undocumented persons', but in my opinion, Biden caving to the left and making that correction about an alleged murderer just doesn't look good optically (imo).

Yeah, believe me, we've got a lot of criminals who get arrested, and let off on bail, only to commit some worse crime shortly after - and I'd bet money that most aren't illegal immigrants - it's a different problem than that of illegal immigration.

Quote from: SGR on Mar 10, 2024, 11:01 PMTo be fair Lisna, you're right, I'm not Biden's biggest fan. But the three posts are because I'm having a discussion with DJ about it, and in doing so, I've learned more (until I started digging deeper, I didn't realize just how many different ways someone could be in the country illegally), so it hasn't just been about bashing Biden, the initial criticism opened up a wider discussion that, ideally, would help us all learn a little bit more than we currently do. And to be fair, it wasn't just one word (term) in a speech, it was from one of the more memorable moments in the speech that ended up getting talked about widely. To Biden's credit, he did much better in the speech than I thought he would.

^ :thumb: Yeah, that's a really good answer, SGR, and I must admit I was rather over-stating my comment about your posts: perfectly natural that you would respond to DJ's comment. That's how these discussions usually advance.

QuoteAdmittedly, I haven't watched the video yet, but I assumed (when I was watching the speech) that this was in reference to the previous border bill that the Republicans blocked - is that not the case?

^ Yes, that's my understanding too: the border bill that's been so much in the news lately, defended by Republican Senator Langford. I think.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Mar 10, 2024, 10:50 PMBiden's SOTU speech lasted over an hour, coherent and on-topic throughout.

... in stark contrast to the Republican's reply: a speech that has not only turned Sen Katie Britt into a laughing-stock, but that also contained a completely non-relevent story about a Mexican woman raped in Mexico 20 years ago. By injecting that story into comments about border issues, KB led America to think that there was a connection between the two topics, when there is none. That is very dishonest, as this news clip makes clear:- 


Rape victim, Karla Jacinto Romero: "No one reached out to me for permission to use my story as part of a political speech. Someone using my story and distorting it  for political purposes is not fair at all."

So Katie Britt, in her see-through pose as an outraged mom in her all-American kitchen, exploits a Mexican woman who's tradgedy is not relevant. It's not much of a rebuttal of the points made in Biden's speech, but without a platform other than loyalty to Trump, the GOP don't have much to work with these days.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Mar 11, 2024, 02:49 PM... in stark contrast to the Republican's reply: a speech that has not only turned Sen Katie Britt into a laughing-stock, but that also contained a completely non-relevent story about a Mexican woman raped in Mexico 20 years ago. By injecting that story into comments about border issues, KB led America to think that there was a connection between the two topics, when there is none. That is very dishonest, as this news clip makes clear:- 

Rape victim, Karla Jacinto Romero: "No one reached out to me for permission to use my story as part of a political speech. Someone using my story and distorting it  for political purposes is not fair at all."

So Katie Britt, in her see-through pose as an outraged mom in her all-American kitchen, exploits a Mexican woman who's tradgedy is not relevant. It's not much of a rebuttal of the points made in Biden's speech, but without a platform other than loyalty to Trump, the GOP don't have much to work with these days.

Katie Britt's speech was horrible (I watched it the day after the fact), without even getting into the details and distortions of what she said. She's an awful public speaker (not persuasive at all). It felt so stilted and awkward - at times it felt like she was being held hostage/at gunpoint off-camera to give this 'rebuttal'. If she has any kind of big future in the GOP, then the GOP is in big trouble.

Briahna Joy Gray & Glenn Greenwald Lament the State of the Union

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Mar 11, 2024, 02:49 PM... in stark contrast to the Republican's reply: a speech that has not only turned Sen Katie Britt into a laughing-stock, but that also contained a completely non-relevent story about a Mexican woman raped in Mexico 20 years ago. By injecting that story into comments about border issues, KB led America to think that there was a connection between the two topics, when there is none. That is very dishonest, as this news clip makes clear:- 

Rape victim, Karla Jacinto Romero: "No one reached out to me for permission to use my story as part of a political speech. Someone using my story and distorting it  for political purposes is not fair at all."

So Katie Britt, in her see-through pose as an outraged mom in her all-American kitchen, exploits a Mexican woman who's tradgedy is not relevant. It's not much of a rebuttal of the points made in Biden's speech, but without a platform other than loyalty to Trump, the GOP don't have much to work with these days.

They write these speeches ahead of time and film them so it's not going to ever be a direct rebuttal to what the president says during the SOTU.

Quote from: SGR on Mar 10, 2024, 10:35 PMI agree with you though, the terminology used should be done responsibly by politicians and those in the media (yeah, I know, keep dreaming). It's irresponsible when Trump uses the term 'illegal immigrants' and then says 'they're poisoning the blood of our nation' - it's not necessarily the term itself that's irresponsible, but the context language it's couched in.

And my criticism for Biden isn't that he wants to double back and use a different term, it's that he did it with an (alleged) murderer. The messaging and optics are just poor. I could be wrong, but I highly doubt a swing voter saw Joe Biden's SOTU speech where he referred to the (alleged) murderer as an 'illegal immigrant' and thought: "He really should be calling them 'undocumented persons', this language is just irresponsible" and was happy to see his retraction. Immigration is a big issue going into the election with the majority of Americans (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/07/state-of-the-union-2024-where-americans-stand-on-the-economy-immigration-and-other-key-issues/), and Biden had an opportunity to appear strong on that issue; when asked, he could've said: "No, I don't regret calling him an 'illegal immigrant' - he was in this country illegally and what he did was illegal". Instead, he looked weak and provided Trump with free ammunition.

So you mentioned something about optics. The optics are bad when you toss around terminology that the opposing party uses as a fear tactic for their base. Maybe undocumented person isn't as great or accurate but it is a hell of a lot better than saying illegals or illegal aliens. Migrants and Asylum seekers is better imo. He's always gonna look weak to Trump and Trump's base is always locked into him. All Biden had to say was this person was a murderer(allegedly) and it doesn't matter where he was from.  It's almost like Joe Biden fell into a trap and didn't know how to talk his way out of it. If an uncommitted voter is that salty over him apologizing for using a word they were gonna vote for Trump.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Mar 11, 2024, 07:17 PMSo you mentioned something about optics. The optics are bad when you toss around terminology that the opposing party uses as a fear tactic for their base. Maybe undocumented person isn't as great or accurate but it is a hell of a lot better than saying illegals or illegal aliens. Migrants and Asylum seekers is better imo. He's always gonna look weak to Trump and Trump's base is always locked into him. All Biden had to say was this person was a murderer(allegedly) and it doesn't matter where he was from.  It's almost like Joe Biden fell into a trap and didn't know how to talk his way out of it. If an uncommitted voter is that salty over him apologizing for using a word they were gonna vote for Trump.

It doesn't matter where he was from, I agree - but I think it does matter if he was here illegally or not (if he said 'undocumented person', he could've avoided the question of legality altogether, which is part of why Dems use it in messaging, I think). I think there's a substantive difference between someone who shouldn't even be here committing a crime and someone who's here legally committing a crime. The former shouldn't have even had the opportunity to committ the crime, and indicates that we have problems with our immigration system that need to be fixed. If it matters for nothing else, it matters for political messaging and influence in these two presidential campaigns.

Like you said, he kind of fell into a trap. If he just said 'undocumented person' to begin with, there wouldn't be any talk about this. He can't get on TV and grovel/apologize to Laken Riley's family, because then that would make him look incompetent and would paint his administration in a terrible light, in regards to border security (and would also play right into Trump's hands) - but by going on TV and talking about how much he regrets the word he used, it makes it look like (even if this isn't exactly what happened - optics) he's apologizing for using terminology that could be offensive to an (alleged) murderer.

If Democrats want to win in 2024, they need to tighten up their messaging about the border issue (and ideally, find a way to improve the problem - messaging is great, but obviously, real solutions are better and strengthen the messaging). It's not too late to do it because of this one flub - by November 2024, no one is even going to remember this incident - unless Democrats continue to flub the messaging and optics about the border problem, and the border remains as porous as it's been.

The reality right now is that 78% of Americans view the border issue as either a crisis or a major problem (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/02/15/how-americans-view-the-situation-at-the-u-s-mexico-border-its-causes-and-consequences/). That's a lot more than just Republicans, and surely includes a majority of swing voters. Given that it's a top issue people will be voting on, the messaging and optics (not just of this one incident, but over time) will matter. You can call it fearmongering, but Republicans are speaking to and acknowledging this issue (you bet they are, because it makes Biden and the Democrats look bad) and making vast (and possibly ethically questionable) promises of how they will fix it if people vote for them. The concerns and fears that voters have about it aren't baseless or removed from reality either. The influx of these people will strain resources like health care, social services and housing and inevitably, an influx of low-wage workers will affect wages for low-income earners in America. It's not necessarily that swing voters and independents think that a majority of these people coming through the border are bad people (in fact, I can only speak for myself, but some of the horrors and tribulations that these people go through to get here speaks to their bravery and courage, like the 38,000 economic migrants that came through the southern border from China (https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Chinese-migrants-flock-to-U.S.-Mexico-border-on-economic-pressures#:~:text=More%20than%2037%2C000%20Chinese%20migrants,and%20Border%20Protection%20data%20shows.) [yes, China] last year), but rather they're concerned that our systems/resources simply can't handle all these people, and immigration needs to happen in a more slow and controlled manner. If Trump and the Republicans are the only ones who are consistent and clear in their messaging of how they will address and fix it, and Democrats continue to just blame the Republicans for the problem and don't offer a clear message/solution, swing voters will vote for Trump (everything else remaining the same of course, things could change if he's convicted of a felony), and that probably is a reason why he's up in the polls.

I agree with your post. You said it all. Nothing to add really. Dems need to get their shit together all around.

Yes, it's really weird, but I also completely agree with SGR !

I like that you are using the word "porous" about the border, instead of the over-simplistic accusation coming all the time from Trump and the Republicans: that Biden maintains an "open" border that they will "close".

Somewhat interesting to hear foreigners' thoughts on our presidential candidates:

Black America Votes: Many Voters Say Money Is The Top Issue In The 2024 Race!

Aaron Rodgers and Jesse Ventura on RFK Jr vice-presidential shortlist (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68515517)

How about some levity?

So it appears, despite Joe's impressive SOTU showing, it hasn't had much effect on general election polls - at least not yet:

Trump vs. Biden Polls: No State of the Union Bounce for Joe (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-vs-biden-polls-state-of-the-union.html)

Quote from: SGR on Mar 14, 2024, 11:13 PMSo it appears, despite Joe's impressive SOTU showing, it hasn't had much effect on general election polls - at least not yet:

Trump vs. Biden Polls: No State of the Union Bounce for Joe (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-vs-biden-polls-state-of-the-union.html)

I despise polls in general. That's the one major annoying thing that I hate with the upcoming election all these stupid polls that doesn't really matter because things WILL change the night before the election and even the day of.

I hate election math.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Mar 14, 2024, 11:29 PMI despise polls in general. That's the one major annoying thing that I hate with the upcoming election all these stupid polls that doesn't really matter because things WILL change the night before the election and even the day of.

I hate election math.

Yeah, I understand the feeling. They're supposed to be a snapshot in time of how the American people are currently feeling and leaning politically (and how accurate they are is definitely up for debate). But yes, it means very little in terms of that support/leaning will look like months ahead when it's actually time for the election. Can't forget October surprises - I'm sure we all remember the Trump 'Grab Em By The Pussy' tape and the FBI re-opening the investigation into Hillary's e-mails - all that last minute stuff does affect support.

Quote from: SGR on Mar 13, 2024, 03:59 PMSomewhat interesting to hear foreigners' thoughts on our presidential candidates:

I agree, SGR, it's always interesting to hear what outsiders think about your own country.
What do Mexicans think of Britain, for example? Their impression seems to be that it's always raining, that the country is beautiful like in a Harry Potter movie, but inexplicably we still tolerate having a monarchy, and what's all that football hooliganism about? We thought the English were very polite, as they sit around drinking tea from dainty cups - oh, and punctual as well. (When Mexicans plan to meet, they even have a phrase, "hora inglés" = "English time" = be punctual : "Let's meet at 7:30, hora inglés").

Quote

^ For me this was disappointing because, quite understandably, those Japanese teenagers have some very superficial impressions of Trump and Biden. I heard "He's funny""He stands out so it's easy to like him". In fact, all credit to them for having an opinion at all, because if I were asked about Japanese politicians, I'd stand there totally dumb on that subway platform in the video clip.

Although it's from 8 years ago and is only about Trump, this might give Americans some idea about how Trump is seen in Europe:-


And here's a snapshot about the European response to Biden's win in 2020:-

RFK Jr. to name wealthy attorney Nicole Shanahan as running mate in prez run (https://nypost.com/2024/03/16/us-news/rfk-jr-to-name-nicole-shanahan-as-running-mate-in-white-house-run-report/)

Trump suggests Prince Harry could be deported for past drug use (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-suggests-prince-harry-deported-drug-use-rcna144105)

QuotePrince Harry, who has recently expressed interest in American citizenship, has been the target of several Trump attacks. In an interview with British journalist Piers Morgan in 2022, he called the prince "whipped like no person he had ever seen."

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Mar 19, 2024, 09:49 PMTrump suggests Prince Harry could be deported for past drug use (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-suggests-prince-harry-deported-drug-use-rcna144105)

This should be the highest priority deportation!  :laughing:

I realize Meghan is an American, but is it possible Trump could find a way to deport her too?  ;)

Quote from: SGR on Mar 19, 2024, 11:04 PMThis should be the highest priority deportation!  :laughing:

That's one of the best campaign promises I've ever heard from a politician.

Quote from: SGR on Mar 19, 2024, 11:04 PMThis should be the highest priority deportation!  :laughing:

I realize Meghan is an American, but is it possible Trump could find a way to deport her too?  ;)

Booo. Leave Meghan alone. She already had to deal with Harry's racist ass family.

This is how I imagine many foreigners (Non-Americans) think of our current presidential horse race

I think I might need a translation of Joe's vocals there, to appreciate that performance to its fullest.

Trump's social media company will go public in a merger that could net the cash-strapped ex-president $3 billion (https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-windfall-top-3-billion-shareholder-vote-social-media-merger-rcna144634)

Firebrand Democrat strategist James Carville says Biden's poll numbers are as bad as seeing your grandma naked and that president's party is dominated by 'too many preachy females' (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13231253/democrat-strategist-james-carville-biden-polls.html)

QuoteDespite his overall approval of the incumbent president, Carville said that he suspected there to be too many 'preachy females' in the party.

He added: '"Don't drink beer. Don't watch football. Don't eat hamburgers. This is not good for you." The message is too feminine.'

 :laughing:

RFK Jr. threatens to sue Nevada over ballot access (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rfk-jr-threatens-lawsuit-nevada-over-ballot-access/)

Are Republicans trying to lose the election? Why would you bring this case to the Supreme Court now, instead of after the election?

Supreme Court's antiabortion conservatives could restrict abortion pills sent by mail, even in blue states (https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-courts-anti-abortion-conservatives-100007255.html)

Trump better pray that the conservative majority in the Supreme Court rules against restricting these pills.

Quote from: SGR on Mar 26, 2024, 05:48 PMAre Republicans trying to lose the election? Why would you bring this case to the Supreme Court now, instead of after the election?

Supreme Court's antiabortion conservatives could restrict abortion pills sent by mail, even in blue states (https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-courts-anti-abortion-conservatives-100007255.html)

Trump better pray that the conservative majority in the Supreme Court rules against restricting these pills.

I don't know why you're so shocked, evil oppressive actions like this are the republicans' entire platform at this point. I'm sure their pro-lifer base is glad they're doing it now rather than waiting.

And I'm gonna be frank, it does come off as a little weird to me to say that Trump is the one that should be worrying about the Supreme Court banning abortion pills with no mention of the people who would actually be greatly negatively impacted by such bans.

Quote from: Lexi Darling on Mar 26, 2024, 06:13 PMI don't know why you're so shocked, evil oppressive actions like this are the republicans' entire platform at this point. I'm sure their pro-lifer base is glad they're doing it now rather than waiting.

And I'm gonna be frank, it does come off as a little weird to me to say that Trump is the one that should be worrying about the Supreme Court banning abortion pills with no mention of the people who would actually be greatly negatively impacted by such bans.

I didn't mean to come off as insensitive to the women that would be affected if this restriction gets passed, and I personally am against the restriction.

With presidential races, I often like to view them through the lens of 'political strategy', regardless of what my opinions on any given individual issue might be (politics and the history of American presidential races fascinates me - all it takes is one little stumble or faux pas to change the outcome of a race - like Dukakis riding in the tank, or George Bush Sr. checking his watch during the debates). It probably doesn't help either that, as a guy, the pro-life/pro-choice issue doesn't affect me personally (and thus, isn't as emotionally-charged of an issue for me), which probably influences the way I think/talk about it (though it most certainly would affect the women in my life).

The broad impact this restriction would have would be a massive political blow to the Republicans. I'm by no means shocked they want to pass the restriction, but the fact they're doing it now seems like a complete oversight. It's an immense political gift they're handing the Democrats if it gets passed (even bringing the case to the SC is a gift, regardless of how they rule). Women, who might be disastisfied with the state of the economy or the border issue and might otherwise be leaning towards voting (R) will vote (D) if the Republicans continue to push this issue.

Quote from: Lexi Darling on Mar 26, 2024, 06:13 PMI don't know why you're so shocked, evil oppressive actions like this are the republicans' entire platform at this point. I'm sure their pro-lifer base is glad they're doing it now rather than waiting.

And I'm gonna be frank, it does come off as a little weird to me to say that Trump is the one that should be worrying about the Supreme Court banning abortion pills with no mention of the people who would actually be greatly negatively impacted by such bans.

Aw don't do it! We much prefer you as Lexi!

Quote from: SGR on Mar 26, 2024, 06:39 PMI didn't mean to come off as insensitive to the women that would be affected if this restriction gets passed, and I personally am against the restriction.

With presidential races, I often like to view them through the lens of 'political strategy', regardless of what my opinions on any given individual issue might be (politics and the history of American presidential races fascinates me - all it takes is one little stumble or faux pas to change the outcome of a race - like Dukakis riding in the tank, or George Bush Sr. checking his watch during the debates). It probably doesn't help either that, as a guy, the pro-life/pro-choice issue doesn't affect me personally (and thus, isn't as emotionally-charged of an issue for me), which probably influences the way I think/talk about it (though it most certainly would affect the women in my life).

The broad impact this restriction would have would be a massive political blow to the Republicans. I'm by no means shocked they want to pass the restriction, but the fact they're doing it now seems like a complete oversight. It's an immense political gift they're handing the Democrats if it gets passed (even bringing the case to the SC is a gift, regardless of how they rule). Women, who might be disastisfied with the state of the economy or the border issue and might otherwise be leaning towards voting (R) will vote (D) if the Republicans continue to push this issue.

Thank you, I appreciate you taking the time to clarify your point of view.

Trump's Net Worth Hits $6.5 Billion, Making Him One of World's 500 Richest People (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-net-worth-hits-6-190742235.html)

QuoteDonald Trump's business empire was supposed to be in peril like never before on Monday. Instead, it turned into the single-greatest day on record for the former president's wealth.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. picks Nicole Shanahan as his running mate for his independent White House bid (https://apnews.com/article/rfk-bobby-kennedy-vp-running-mate-6be6d7e04ba7d9e74190b8c01a1bf075)

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Mar 27, 2024, 04:09 PMRobert F. Kennedy Jr. picks Nicole Shanahan as his running mate for his independent White House bid (https://apnews.com/article/rfk-bobby-kennedy-vp-running-mate-6be6d7e04ba7d9e74190b8c01a1bf075)

Damn, I was rooting for him to pick Aaron Rodgers (even though I knew it wasn't gonna happen) just for all the drama/entertainment that would inevitably ensue.

Quote from: SGR on Mar 27, 2024, 06:09 PMDamn, I was rooting for him to pick Aaron Rodgers (even though I knew it wasn't gonna happen) just for all the drama/entertainment that would inevitably ensue.

I think his choice of Nicole Shanahan has pissed off the DNC more than they already were and would've been otherwise. The Democrat establishment is only going to amp up the personal attacks against him from this point onward.

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Mar 28, 2024, 05:45 PMI think his choice of Nicole Shanahan has pissed off the DNC more than they already were and would've been otherwise. The Democrat establishment is only going to amp up the personal attacks against him from this point onward.

You'll have to fill me in here - is there something specific about Nicole Shanahan that pisses the DNC off? The only thing I really know about her is that she seems intelligent and is the ex-wife of Google founder Sergey Bryn. I do know that the DNC has been making efforts to keep RFK Jr. off the ballot (https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/09/dnc-rfk-fec-00140719#:~:text=The%20Democratic%20National%20Committee%20is,candidate%20in%20the%202024%20race.) to, y'know, protect democracy and all that. 

Quote from: SGR on Mar 28, 2024, 07:04 PMYou'll have to fill me in here - is there something specific about Nicole Shanahan that pisses the DNC off? The only thing I really know about her is that she seems intelligent and is the ex-wife of Google founder Sergey Bryn. I do know that the DNC has been making efforts to keep RFK Jr. off the ballot (https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/09/dnc-rfk-fec-00140719#:~:text=The%20Democratic%20National%20Committee%20is,candidate%20in%20the%202024%20race.) to, y'know, protect democracy and all that. 

A woman, a POC, articulate, a lawyer, fabulously wealthy, and previously donated to Joe Biden's 2020 campaign but is now running against him with RFK Jr.

Looks like the perfect combination in his VP pick to piss off the DNC in the 2024 Presidential election to me.

Trump allies hope to raise $33 million at Florida fundraiser, seeking to narrow gap with Biden (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-fundraiser-33-million-florida-biden/)

Why Hasn't Biden Called Chris Christie? (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/03/29/biden-anti-trump-republicans-00149610)

Nicole Shanahan has been quiet since being named RFK Jr.'s running mate (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/nicole-shanahan-quiet-named-rfk-jrs-running-mate-rcna146432)

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Apr 06, 2024, 06:36 PMNicole Shanahan has been quiet since being named RFK Jr.'s running mate (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/nicole-shanahan-quiet-named-rfk-jrs-running-mate-rcna146432)

Perfect, she's showcasing how capable she is for the VP job!

George Galloway MP - MOATS with Garland Nixon

Biden plans order to limit southern border crossings by end of month (https://www.axios.com/2024/04/10/biden-border-executive-order-immigrants-asylum-limit)

So you're telling me that, as the election looms ever closer, Biden in fact didn't need a new border bill and more aid to Ukraine in order to enforce the law? And that he could've done this all along? Huh.

(https://www.economist.com/content-assets/images/20240127_EPC149.png)

Biden Says His Uncle May Have Been Eaten by Cannibals (https://www.newsweek.com/biden-war-cannibals-pennsylvania-1891478)

I can sympathize with anyone in the US being very concerned with what goes on at the southern border, and as you prob know, I like any graphic that gives an easy-to-read history of trends, so thanks for this SGR:

Quote from: SGR on Apr 10, 2024, 04:28 PM(https://www.economist.com/content-assets/images/20240127_EPC149.png)

^ This one shows a spectacular, alarming jump the minute the Biden admin kicks in - that is, until you read the asterisk that tells us that the Biden-years figures include expulsions as well, that hadn't previously been included. Who or how was it decided to include expulsions as part of the immigration figures?! It seems to me like a decision with an ulterior motive: to muddy-up or tilt the stats in a preferred direction.
And sadly, getting to the actually stats is a pretty muddy affair already:- 

https://www.factcheck.org/2024/02/breaking-down-the-immigration-figures/

What a shame there cannot be more honesty on both sides of this political issue. :(

Quote from: SGR on Apr 10, 2024, 04:28 PMBiden plans order to limit southern border crossings by end of month (https://www.axios.com/2024/04/10/biden-border-executive-order-immigrants-asylum-limit)

So you're telling me that, as the election looms ever closer, Biden in fact didn't need a new border bill and more aid to Ukraine in order to enforce the law? And that he could've done this all along? Huh.

Yeah, both sides playing politics with these issues. As I understand it, Biden was holding out for a long-standing commitment from the Senate to help with improved border funding, but as that was never delivered (thank you, Speaker Johnson) he's gone for a short-stop fix instead. With a bit more Republican participation, there could've been a bi-partisan bill ensuring a consistent policy over various White House admins. Instead, Biden is left with just an exec order, which could be rescinded if Trump were to win the election, so back to dizzying policy changes that, I imagine (i) don't look good on the world stage and (ii) are prob inefficient and expensive in terms of implementing staffing/legal/facility policies.   

(And for anyone exasperated by the way the actual figures for "gotaways" and releases are so hazy - it hasn't been so different in the UK, which has its own fiascos dealing with border issues.) 

Quote from: SGR on Apr 17, 2024, 10:55 PMBiden Says His Uncle May Have Been Eaten by Cannibals (https://www.newsweek.com/biden-war-cannibals-pennsylvania-1891478)

Pinocchio Joe tells yet another tall tale. :laughing:


Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency (https://dpaa-mil.sites.crmforce.mil/dpaaProfile?id=a0Jt000001nzWi4EAE)

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 18, 2024, 12:59 AMI can sympathize with anyone in the US being very concerned with what goes on at the southern border, and as you prob know, I like any graphic that gives an easy-to-read history of trends, so thanks for this SGR:

^ This one shows a spectacular, alarming jump the minute the Biden admin kicks in - that is, until you read the asterisk that tells us that the Biden-years figures include expulsions as well, that hadn't previously been included. Who or how was it decided to include expulsions as part of the immigration figures?! It seems to me like a decision with an ulterior motive: to muddy-up or tilt the stats in a preferred direction.
And sadly, getting to the actually stats is a pretty muddy affair already:- 

Good eye, Lisna! Honestly, I missed that. This graph is a YouGov/Economist graph, who I normally put a baseline level of trust in to model and contextualize things fairly and accurately. And I suppose to their credit, they did include the caveat in the asterisk, but if you don't read that, the graph looks worse than it would otherwise. Regardless, I think however you graph out border crossings/encounters, it will look much higher for Biden's admin than previous administrations - here's another graph from Statista that doesn't appear to make any caveats about previous data - whether this graph is completely reliable though, I can't say for sure. If you can find a similar graph that you think would be more accurate, I'd be happy to see it:

(https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/20397.jpeg)

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 18, 2024, 12:59 AMhttps://www.factcheck.org/2024/02/breaking-down-the-immigration-figures/

What a shame there cannot be more honesty on both sides of this political issue. :(

I gave that a read, and there are some interesting nuggets in there. At the same time, I always suggest skepticism (as you had with the graph I linked) when reading statistics and percentages and using those to try and paint a clear picture (you mention later in your post about the 'haziness' of it all, which I'd agree with). Looking at the last two paragraphs of the link you provided:

QuoteBier calculated release and removal rates for the last two years of former President Donald Trump's term and the first 26 months of Biden's, using DHS data, including the lifecycle report, ICE detention statistics and other figures published by the Republican majority on the House Judiciary Committee. Bier wrote in November that his work showed the Biden administration "has removed a higher percentage of arrested border crossers in its first two years than the Trump DHS did over its last two years. Moreover, migrants were more likely to be released after a border arrest under President Trump than under President Biden."

While the raw numbers are much higher under Biden — 5 million encounters compared with 1.4 million under Trump in those time frames — the percentages for the two administrations were similar: 47% removed under Trump and 51% under Biden. Bier's estimates are for illegal immigration between ports of entry. (As our bar graph above shows, both administrations had removal rates above 50% when Title 42 was being used to expel people.)

I have to wonder why we're looking specifically at that timeframe (last two years of Trump, first 26 months of Biden) instead of Trump's full term and Biden's term (or at least, all available data) up til now. As the article points out earlier, Trump's last year (during the pandemic) saw Title 42 being used to immediately expel border-crossers - given that, how does that affect the percentages/numbers of release/removal that are cited in the last two paragraphs quoted above? Even if the percentages cited are correct, it does concede that the raw numbers of immigrants being released are much higher under Biden. I think that cuts to the root of the concerns/fears of many Americans. It's not that Americans think the percentage of immigrants being released into the country, relative to the number encountered at the border is higher than it was under Trump or even Obama - it's that the raw number of immigrants being released into the country is much higher, which appears to be true. And all of this raises the question - why are the amount of border encounters so drastically higher than they were in the previous two administrations? Is it policy related? Or is it due to the perception that Biden is softer on immigration? What's changed between Obama/Trump and now?

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 18, 2024, 12:59 AMYeah, both sides playing politics with these issues. As I understand it, Biden was holding out for a long-standing commitment from the Senate to help with improved border funding, but as that was never delivered (thank you, Speaker Johnson) he's gone for a short-stop fix instead. With a bit more Republican participation, there could've been a bi-partisan bill ensuring a consistent policy over various White House admins. Instead, Biden is left with just an exec order, which could be rescinded if Trump were to win the election, so back to dizzying policy changes that, I imagine (i) don't look good on the world stage and (ii) are prob inefficient and expensive in terms of implementing staffing/legal/facility policies.   

(And for anyone exasperated by the way the actual figures for "gotaways" and releases are so hazy - it hasn't been so different in the UK, which has its own fiascos dealing with border issues.) 

I think we've already gone over this, so I won't belabor it again - but I think that bill was a crock that would have made little if any difference in what's happening. The politics over this all is ridiculous (on both sides) - it's stupid optical advantages for purposes of electioneering (Trump: "Biden's leaving the border wide open! I'll fix that on day one!", Biden: "I tried to pass the most comprehensive border bill our country's ever seen, but the Republicans wouldn't let me!"). If the southern border/CBP truly needs more funding, it should not require congressional bickering and a new bill to make it happen. If we can swiftly, and without much argument, send tens of billions to Israel, giving our own CBP peanuts in comparison should happen practically automatically, without question. If what's happening at the border is a 'crisis', as both Republicans and Democrats seem to agree it is, Biden should be issuing executive orders. On his first day in office, Biden signed executive orders to dismantle/reverse Trump's immigration policies (https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_biden-signs-executive-orders-reversing-trump-immigration-policies/6201520.html), but now he's claiming: 'there's "no guarantee" he has the power to take action on the border without legislation from Congress (https://www.axios.com/2024/04/10/biden-border-executive-order-immigrants-asylum-limit)'? Give me a break. He proved on day one that he could. If a president can start war without congressional approval (and they've proven they can), they can take action on our own border without congressional approval - and Biden knows this. It's a difficult situation for Biden politically, because if he does issue executive orders and we get back to the point that our border policies look much like they did under Trump, then Trump can claim he was right all along (and he won't be shy about saying it). If Biden doesn't issue the executive orders and things don't improve, then Trump will use the border issue as a political cudgel. In a political sense, it's a very difficult tightrope for Biden and Democrats to walk.

One thought I had is - I wonder if we could find an effective proxy statistic/graph for border encounters. Given my (not entirely grounded with solid evidence) belief that Democrats and Republicans (or perhaps more accurately, the unelected bureaucrats like the CIA) have an agreement with the Mexican cartels that we allow them to do business (smuggling drugs in through the border) here in exchange for them acting as a proxy for American political control in central America (at the understood expense of American lives through drug overdoses), I wondered if the rate of drug overdoses in the US might map relatively closely to border encounters. Here are two graphs going back to 2002 - and while they're not perfect matches, they're close enough that it makes me wonder - the spikes seem to match pretty closely at the least:

(https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/images/databriefs/451-500/db491-fig1.png)

(https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/SR_24.02.15_BorderEncounters_feature.png?w=1200&h=628&crop=1)

Fly Away with RFK (https://www.kennedy24.com/ziplining-sweepstakes)


I wonder what the "alternative indoor experience with Mr. Kennedy" will be in the event of inclement weather?

Quote from: SGR on Apr 17, 2024, 10:55 PMBiden Says His Uncle May Have Been Eaten by Cannibals (https://www.newsweek.com/biden-war-cannibals-pennsylvania-1891478)

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Apr 18, 2024, 03:33 PMPinocchio Joe tells yet another tall tale. :laughing:

Another day, another nickname for Biden, am I right?
____________________________________

I try not to post clips of political commentators on here, but I'm making an exception today:-

That loathesome pontificator, Bill Barr said yesterday that he'll be voting for Trump in November, despite having predicted that a second Trump term would be "chaos....a horrorshow". This newsclip from MSNBC has a lot of predictable outrage from the over-talkative Joe Scarborough (a man it is easy to get tired of), but then, at 3:10 mins in, he hands over to Bill Sykes. This guy, imo, provides a welcome reminder of the choice between Presidential candidates facing the US in November, and in particular points out how bizarre the Republican position is now becoming:-

 

Hilariously, I read the line about Biden and the cannibals, saw Lisna refer to a one-line link and say "what a pity there can't be more honesty about this issue" or something, and thought it referred to that link! It was like he was saying, "come on, now! Can't other politicans, on both sides of the aisle, please own up to the fact that their close relatives were eaten by cannibals too? Isn't it time to drop all the pretence and have these stories out in the open?"  :laughing:  :laughing:  :laughing:  Oh man, that made my day, even if it was just my misreading of it!

Hillary Clinton Condemns Trump For Paying Hush Money To Political Liabilities Instead Of Just Killing Them (https://babylonbee.com/news/hillary-clinton-condemns-trump-for-paying-hush-money-to-political-liabilities-instead-of-just-killing-them)

 :laughing:

Democrats pulling out all the stops against RFK Jr. (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4606148-rfk-jr-robert-f-kennedy-jr-nicole-shanahan-libertarian-democrats-joe-biden-donald-trump/)

Quote from: SGR on Apr 20, 2024, 05:41 PMDemocrats pulling out all the stops against RFK Jr. (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4606148-rfk-jr-robert-f-kennedy-jr-nicole-shanahan-libertarian-democrats-joe-biden-donald-trump/)

I hope Bobby's got some high-quality body armor.

Speaking of RFK Jr....


RFK Jr.'s quest to get on the presidential ballot in all 50 states (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rfk-jr-quest-presidential-ballot-50-states/)

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Apr 20, 2024, 06:30 PMI hope Bobby's got some high-quality body armor.

He better, since Biden won't give him secret service protection.

US House passes $95 billion Ukraine, Israel aid package, sends to Senate (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-house-vote-long-awaited-95-billion-ukraine-israel-aid-package-2024-04-20/)

Since this happened on 04/20, I'll just assume congress was high. Actually, that's not fair to stoners, if they were high, they'd probably make better decisions. Funny how when it comes to funding wars, establishment Democrats and establishment Republicans can put all their petty differences aside and unite for a 'patriotic bipartisan bill'.

Just my opinion, but I think Ukraine is a big fat money-laundering scheme (as so many wars are), and the US seems poised to spend itself into oblivion. But on the bright side, I'm sure Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell's stock portfolios are doing well! That'll be a comforting thought, I'm sure, as average Americans rack up credit card debt to buy groceries.

Quote from: SGR on Apr 21, 2024, 09:43 PMUS House passes $95 billion Ukraine, Israel aid package, sends to Senate (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-house-vote-long-awaited-95-billion-ukraine-israel-aid-package-2024-04-20/)

Since this happened on 04/20, I'll just assume congress was high. Actually, that's not fair to stoners, if they were high, they'd probably make better decisions. Funny how when it comes to funding wars, establishment Democrats and establishment Republicans can put all their petty differences aside and unite for a 'patriotic bipartisan bill'.

Just my opinion, but I think Ukraine is a big fat money-laundering scheme (as so many wars are), and the US seems poised to spend itself into oblivion. But on the bright side, I'm sure Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell's stock portfolios are doing well! That'll be a comforting thought, I'm sure, as average Americans rack up credit card debt to buy groceries.

I posted this quote in another thread but it's also appropriate here...

The word bipartisan usually means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out.

 - George Carlin

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Apr 21, 2024, 01:41 PMSpeaking of RFK Jr....


RFK Jr.'s quest to get on the presidential ballot in all 50 states (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rfk-jr-quest-presidential-ballot-50-states/)

We live in very interesting times. RFK Jr. might end up being only a 'Teddy Roosevelt/Bull Moose' spoiler for either Trump or Biden, but there's a realistic shot he could win depending on what happens. Trump is in legal jeopardy (and he's old), Biden in many ways seems like a lame-duck president, and he's even older. Only a couple dominoes would need to fall the right way for RFK Jr. to have a legitimate shot. That being said, if those dominoes started falling the right way for RFK Jr., I fear we'll eventually wake up to national headlines about some 'totally deranged, lone gunman' with spurious ties to foreign nations who will become infamous by his first, middle, and last name.

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Apr 21, 2024, 09:49 PMI posted this quote in another thread but it's also appropriate here...

The word bipartisan usually means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out.

 - George Carlin

As a young man (I suppose at 29, I'm still young, but I guess I mean as a teenager and young 20-something where I was trying to formulate my worldview), George Carlin really influenced me politically in a big way. If you couldn't tell, I'm rather disillusioned and cynical about American politics. He was a national treasure. RIP.

Not a dime of all that $95 billion going to our border, of course.

One other thing about RFK Jr.

I feel bad for the guy. His family fucking sucks.

Kennedy family members endorse Biden in stinging rebuke to RFK Jr (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/18/kennedy-family-endorse-biden)

Now I get if they privately thought Biden would be a better choice than RFK Jr., but a baseline expectation would be that your own family wouldn't come out and endorse your opposition. The worst case scenario, in a normal family (you'd think), is that they gave no public endorsements, rather than actively rebuking RFK Jr. My family would never do that to me, for example. I'd hope most healthy families wouldn't do that to their own.

Quote from: SGR on Apr 21, 2024, 09:43 PMJust my opinion, but I think Ukraine is a big fat money-laundering scheme (as so many wars are), and the US seems poised to spend itself into oblivion. But on the bright side, I'm sure Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell's stock portfolios are doing well! That'll be a comforting thought, I'm sure, as average Americans rack up credit card debt to buy groceries.

I understand your point, SGR, but I think "spend itself into oblivion" is a overstating things, especially if this 2022 chart is accurate or relevant:-

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/2022_Total_US_Government_Spending_Breakdown.png)

At $95 B, the proposed spending is about 1% of total 2022 spending. The cash will be split between 3 international allies (Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan), with Ukraine getting $60 B. Very generous of the US, but it's a pretty slim slice of pizza on the pie chart.

Here's another chart that might alleviate the sting of US spending on Ukraine: by percentage of GDP, the US is squarely in the middle of the pack:

  (https://static.dw.com/image/61526751_7.png)

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Apr 21, 2024, 09:49 PMI posted this quote in another thread but it's also appropriate here...

The word bipartisan usually means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out.

 - George Carlin

^ :laughing: Brilliant! As George Carlin often is.

Quote from: SGR on Apr 21, 2024, 09:50 PMNot a dime of all that $95 billion going to our border, of course.

^ As you said elsewhere, SGR, you and I seem to be going round in a loop trying to find the blame for this funding shortfall at the border.

Quote from: SGR on Apr 21, 2024, 09:57 PMOne other thing about RFK Jr.

I feel bad for the guy. His family fucking sucks.

Kennedy family members endorse Biden in stinging rebuke to RFK Jr (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/18/kennedy-family-endorse-biden)

Now I get if they privately thought Biden would be a better choice than RFK Jr., but a baseline expectation would be that your own family wouldn't come out and endorse your opposition. The worst case scenario, in a normal family (you'd think), is that they gave no public endorsements, rather than actively rebuking RFK Jr. My family would never do that to me, for example. I'd hope most healthy families wouldn't do that to their own.

^ Are we destined to come to opposite conclusions on every political story, SGR ? :(
I don't know the details of this news item, but it certainly throws up a red flag for someone: do we red-flag all 15 members of RFK's family, or do we red-flag RFK ? To me, just by the numbers, it's more likely that RFK is at fault, how else would their disapproval be so uniform? 

I'm not familiar with all the details, but from what I did read I wouldn't waste too much sympathy on RFKJ. as his family, from what I understand, distanced themselves from his Nazi-supporting, right wing, Covid-denying, sonspiracy theories supporting (and advancing) and all but right wing views, and in an attempt not to allow their legacy and name to be shit on by a right wing in all but name nutjob. I'd have done the same in their position.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 21, 2024, 11:47 PMI understand your point, SGR, but I think "spend itself into oblivion" is a overstating things, especially if this 2022 chart is accurate or relevant:-

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/2022_Total_US_Government_Spending_Breakdown.png)

At $95 B, the proposed spending is about 1% of total 2022 spending. The cash will be split between 3 international allies (Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan), with Ukraine getting $60 B. Very generous of the US, but it's a pretty slim slice of pizza on the pie chart.

I appreciate how you're trying to contextualize things to make me feel better @Lisnaholic :laughing:, but a couple things:

• That chart is from 2022, and doesn't represent large amounts of aid to Ukraine from 2023 and 2024
• While that chart might showcase our federal spending, it does not showcase our ballooning national debt, which I think is unsustainable should we continue down the path we appear to be on - which also affects the value of our dollar and our interest rates (https://www.gao.gov/americas-fiscal-future#:~:text=The%20Nation's%20Unsustainable%20Fiscal%20Path&text=Federal%20debt%20held%20by%20the,the%20economy%2C%20which%20is%20unsustainable.), which is a large part of why my generation can't even afford a home to start a family

Quote from: 'GAO.gov'Federal debt held by the public (that is, the total amount of money that the federal government owes to its investors) will continue to grow faster than the economy, which is unsustainable.

Historically, debt has decreased during peacetime and economic expansions. But this pattern has changed in recent decades. Unless current revenue and spending policies change, by 2028 debt will reach its historical high of 106 percent of GDP, according to our simulation. If unaddressed, it will grow more than twice as fast as the economy and reach 200 percent of GDP by 2050.

• Let's say this chart of yours was from 2024 for the sake of argument. Is my criticism of how my spend-happy government spends our tax dollars not valid because it spends a shit ton of it in other places, which makes the aid to Ukraine look minor in comparison?

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 21, 2024, 11:47 PMHere's another chart that might alleviate the sting of US spending on Ukraine: by percentage of GDP, the US is squarely in the middle of the pack:

 

This is a perfect example of what I mentioned earlier in the thread about how stats/charts/graphs should be treated with skepticism. This chart doesn't mention the GDP of the countries listed. The US GDP dwarfs the GDP of all these other countries. You could combine the GDP of all the countries (other than the US) and you'd be lucky if you had even half of the US GDP ($25.5 trillion in 2022). It alleviates the sting of US spending because Lithuania and Slovakia are sending more to Ukraine in aid as a percentage of their rinky-dink countries' GDP? Nah.  :laughing:

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 21, 2024, 11:47 PM^ As you said elsewhere, SGR, you and I seem to be going round in a loop trying to find the blame for this funding shortfall at the border.

Yes, we have been going back and forth on this, but in my last comment, I'm not trying to even find or assign blame. I'm simply noting how curious it is that our two major parties can so quickly agree on sending tens of billions to Ukraine and Israel, but can't seem to figure out how to handle our own border. What, if anything, does this tell us?

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 21, 2024, 11:47 PM^ Are we destined to come to opposite conclusions on every political story, SGR ? :(
I don't know the details of this news item, but it certainly throws up a red flag for someone: do we red-flag all 15 members of RFK's family, or do we red-flag RFK ? To me, just by the numbers, it's more likely that RFK is at fault, how else would their disapproval be so uniform? 

The essence of this argument makes no sense to me. Because RFK Jr's family totals more in number (more than 1), they should be given the benefit of the doubt and we should assume it's RFK Jr's fault? Could we extend this argument to (yes, I'm now invoking Godwin's Law) the Nazis and the Jews? Do we red-flag the hundreds of thousands of Jews in Nazi Germany, or do we red-flag the tens of millions of Nazis? If the Jews weren't at fault, how else would the Nazis' disapproval be so uniform?  :laughing:

I jest, but my original comment had nothing to do with who is right and who is wrong in this scenario - because I don't know, ultimately, and the answer is most likely subjective. Rather just that I sympathize with RFK Jr for having a family that is happy to come out publicly in opposition to him.

Quote from: Trollheart on Apr 22, 2024, 01:05 AMI'm not familiar with all the details, but from what I did read I wouldn't waste too much sympathy on RFKJ. as his family, from what I understand, distanced themselves from his Nazi-supporting, right wing, Covid-denying, sonspiracy theories supporting (and advancing) and all but right wing views, and in an attempt not to allow their legacy and name to be shit on by a right wing in all but name nutjob. I'd have done the same in their position.

(https://media.tenor.com/-g_sKUkI3MkAAAAM/what-bruh.gif)

Quote from: SGR on Apr 22, 2024, 02:26 AMI appreciate how you're trying to contextualize things to make me feel better @Lisnaholic :laughing:, but a couple things:

• That chart is from 2022, and doesn't represent large amounts of aid to Ukraine from 2023 and 2024

- Yes, I did point out that its relevance was not 100%

• While that chart might showcase our federal spending, it does not showcase our ballooning national debt, which I think is unsustainable should we continue down the path we appear to be on - which also affects the value of our dollar and our interest rates (https://www.gao.gov/americas-fiscal-future#:~:text=The%20Nation's%20Unsustainable%20Fiscal%20Path&text=Federal%20debt%20held%20by%20the,the%20economy%2C%20which%20is%20unsustainable.), which is a large part of why my generation can't even afford a home to start a family

I don't know much about how National Debts work - beyond the fact that every country seems to have one. I'm sorry that it's difficult for your generation to afford a home. Perhaps the housing market is a discussion for another thread as it's such a complex issue

• Let's say this chart of yours was from 2024 for the sake of argument. Is my criticism of how my spend-happy government spends our tax dollars not valid because it spends a shit ton of it in other places, which makes the aid to Ukraine look minor in comparison?

That's a good question, SGR. I didn't mean to say that your argument is not valid, and at one level every dollar spent on A is a dollar not spent on B. I was saying that linking support for Ukraine to "spending to oblivion" is a stretch.


This is a perfect example of what I mentioned earlier in the thread about how stats/charts/graphs should be treated with skepticism. This chart doesn't mention the GDP of the countries listed. The US GDP dwarfs the GDP of all these other countries. You could combine the GDP of all the countries (other than the US) and you'd be lucky if you had even half of the US GDP ($25.5 trillion in 2022). It alleviates the sting of US spending because Lithuania and Slovakia are sending more to Ukraine in aid as a percentage of their rinky-dink countries' GDP? Nah.  :laughing:
Like I said when I posted the chart, it shows percentage statistics. If you just look at it and say "Which bar is biggest?" then it could be misleading, but it doesn't have to be treated skepticism; plenty of people understand the difference between proportional and net figures. Yes, the US sends the biggest chunk of cash, but like in many areas of countries joining together to fund international causes, the fairest principle is some proportional system. Or what? The USA and Malta (pop. = 0.4 million) should pay the same towards, I don't know, cancer research, NATO or whatever ? 

Yes, we have been going back and forth on this, but in my last comment, I'm not trying to even find or assign blame. I'm simply noting how curious it is that our two major parties can so quickly agree on sending tens of billions to Ukraine and Israel, but can't seem to figure out how to handle our own border. What, if anything, does this tell us?
I don't know who is more surprised at the phrase "can so quickly": me or Zelenskyy ;)

The essence of this argument makes no sense to me. Because RFK Jr's family totals more in number (more than 1), they should be given the benefit of the doubt and we should assume it's RFK Jr's fault? Could we extend this argument to (yes, I'm now invoking Godwin's Law) the Nazis and the Jews? Do we red-flag the hundreds of thousands of Jews in Nazi Germany, or do we red-flag the tens of millions of Nazis? If the Jews weren't at fault, how else would the Nazis' disapproval be so uniform?  :laughing:

I jest, but my original comment had nothing to do with who is right and who is wrong in this scenario - because I don't know, ultimately, and the answer is most likely subjective. Rather just that I sympathize with RFK Jr for having a family that is happy to come out publicly in opposition to him.
Perhaps we should agree to differ on this one, SGR, because I'm too tired to explore RFKJ's record - but it looks like Trollheart has done some research, and his mention of "Covid-denying" is another red flag against the guy.    

:thumb: Thanks as always for your good humour, and I hope the pink font isn't too hard on your eyes!

Quote from: SGR on Apr 22, 2024, 02:42 AM(https://media.tenor.com/-g_sKUkI3MkAAAAM/what-bruh.gif)

Not sure why Steve Harvey is so dumbfounded, RFK has 100% pushed antisemitic conspiracy shit pretty openly, along with plenty of other offensively horrible conspiracy theories. I don't know how you would think that's a surprising thing for TH to say, lol.

Quote from: Lexi Darling on Apr 22, 2024, 04:44 AMNot sure why Steve Harvey is so dumbfounded, RFK has 100% pushed antisemitic conspiracy shit pretty openly, along with plenty of other offensively horrible conspiracy theories. I don't know how you would think that's a surprising thing for TH to say, lol.

To be honest, it was me who was dumbfounded because I didn't connect the dots of what (I think) TH meant, I was genuinely confused because I think I read it too literally - the way you just framed it, I think I understand where he was coming from now, though perhaps you or TH could provide me with additional context (admittedly, I haven't followed RFK Jr as closely as Trump/Biden). I didn't connect 'nazi supporting' with that thing he said about COVID-19 being ethnically designed to not target Jews (and Chinese people). I'm guessing that's what TH meant. The other thing that confused me was 'covid denying' - I'm guessing that's in reference to RFK Jr's controversial views on vaccines (or maybe it was an extension on the previous point of his claim it was designed to ethnically target) - if that's not the case, I'm not sure what's meant by that. Maybe I'm just not aware of something RFK Jr. said.

RFK Jr has said some pretty controversial things, but I wouldn't classify him as a 'right wing nutjob'. He has some views/policy proposals that are left of Republicans and some views/policy proposals that are right of Democrats, he doesn't exactly fit cleanly into one box.

And to TH, my apologies, I should have just asked what you meant instead of replying with a snarky Steve Harvey GIF (which is admittedly one of my favorite GIFs). Sorry about that, brother.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 22, 2024, 04:20 AM:thumb: Thanks as always for your good humour, and I hope the pink font isn't too hard on your eyes!

Out of all the font colors you could have chose, you opted with garish hot pink?  :laughing:

As always @Lisnaholic, I appreciate you taking the time to read and respond to me (even though we often disagree, which kinda makes it fun and insightful) - give me a bit and I'll give you a proper (and hopefully thoughtful) response. Maybe tomorrow.

Quote from: SGR on Apr 22, 2024, 05:43 AMTo be honest, it was me who was dumbfounded because I didn't connect the dots of what (I think) TH meant, I was genuinely confused because I think I read it too literally - the way you just framed it, I think I understand where he was coming from now, though perhaps you or TH could provide me with additional context (admittedly, I haven't followed RFK Jr as closely as Trump/Biden). I didn't connect 'nazi supporting' with that thing he said about COVID-19 being ethnically designed to not target Jews (and Chinese people). I'm guessing that's what TH meant. The other thing that confused me was 'covid denying' - I'm guessing that's in reference to RFK Jr's controversial views on vaccines (or maybe it was an extension on the previous point of his claim it was designed to ethnically target) - if that's not the case, I'm not sure what's meant by that. Maybe I'm just not aware of something RFK Jr. said.

RFK Jr has said some pretty controversial things, but I wouldn't classify him as a 'right wing nutjob'. He has some views/policy proposals that are left of Republicans and some views/policy proposals that are right of Democrats, he doesn't exactly fit cleanly into one box.

And to TH, my apologies, I should have just asked what you meant instead of replying with a snarky Steve Harvey GIF (which is admittedly one of my favorite GIFs). Sorry about that, brother.

I don't follow him super closely either, but anytime I hear about him it always seems to be someone reporting on the insane shit he says. Here's an overview of some of that.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/10/10/rfk-jr-launches-independent-2024-run-here-are-all-the-conspiracies-he-promotes-from-vaccines-to-mass-shootings/?sh=43efffa53cef (https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/10/10/rfk-jr-launches-independent-2024-run-here-are-all-the-conspiracies-he-promotes-from-vaccines-to-mass-shootings/?sh=43efffa53cef)

Apologies if my reply came off as a bit indignant. As always I appreciate your respectfulness and willingness to hear others out even if we don't always see eye to eye.

Former Green Candidate CALLS OUT Party's DYSFUNCTION - w/ Matthew Hoh

New polling, just in (from 1,000 registered voters):

In a one-on-one match-up: Trump 46% of voters, Biden 44%

With RFKJ: Biden 39%, Trump 37%, RFKJ 13%

I say, "Go RFKJ ! Not for the win, but for helping with Trump's loss." RFKJ is luring away twice as many Trump voters as he is Biden voters - not surprising to judge from what is being said here about his political ideas.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 22, 2024, 03:09 PMNew polling, just in (from 1,000 registered voters):

In a one-on-one match-up: Trump 46% of voters, Biden 44%

With RFKJ: Biden 39%, Trump 37%, RFKJ 13%

I say, "Go RFKJ ! Not for the win, but for helping with Trump's loss." RFKJ is luring away twice as many Trump voters as he is Biden voters - not surprising to judge from what is being said here about his political ideas.

That's strange. I thought he would pull away more left leaning voters from Biden than he would from Trump. RFKJ is more left leaning than the few right stances he has.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Apr 22, 2024, 03:35 PMThat's strange. I thought he would pull away more left leaning voters from Biden than he would from Trump. RFKJ is more left leaning than the few right stances he has.

At this point, I'd take those polling results with a grain of salt until we start to see the polling paint a clear and consistent picture (assuming it does) month after month. This article/polling was from only 4 weeks ago, for example.

What the Polls Say Today: RFK Jr. Now Hurting Biden, Helping Trump (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/what-the-polls-say-today-kennedy-hurts-biden-helps-trump.html)

If anything, I think the recent polls would suggest that we still don't know who RFK Jr will pull more votes from. I think if Democrats were confident that RFK Jr. would hurt Trump more than Biden, they wouldn't be expending so much effort trying to block his ballot access.

Another factor will inevitably be voter interest/enthusiasm which NBC News claims is at a 20-year low. This typically indicates that there will be lower voter turnout, so a slice of pie 1,000 person poll might be representative of the way voters might be leaning, it doesn't necessarily indicate which side of the aisle will have greater turnout come election day and of course, the success and visibility of RFK Jr. muddies things further.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/rcna148170

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 22, 2024, 04:20 AMI don't know much about how National Debts work - beyond the fact that every country seems to have one. I'm sorry that it's difficult for your generation to afford a home. Perhaps the housing market is a discussion for another thread as it's such a complex issue.

...

That's a good question, SGR. I didn't mean to say that your argument is not valid, and at one level every dollar spent on A is a dollar not spent on B. I was saying that linking support for Ukraine to "spending to oblivion" is a stretch.

You're right, the issue of housing prices and housing availability is complex and probably would need to be discussed in isolation. I mentioned it not so much to provide an argument or explanation of A --> B causality or anything, just to give you an idea of where some Americans (many in my age bracket/demographic) might be coming from on an emotional level (which ultimately, to probably both of our chagrin, drives voting more than facts and figures do). While of course spending in one area (in this case, Ukranian aid) doesn't mean we can't spend money in other areas domestically and improve on various different problems and situations, just that it can feel frustrating seeing your government sending tens of billions overseas, while we can't afford homes, and the cost of our groceries (despite inflation cooling) are still so high. Our national debt is now around $10 trillion more than our yearly GDP, and it hasn't shown any signs of stopping in recent times. For the first time last year, annual interest payments on the US national debt exceeded $1 trillion (https://www.visualcapitalist.com/u-s-debt-interest-payments-reach-1-trillion/) (perhaps National Debts as a whole is a topic that deserves its own thread, I'm sure we'd all learn something new from that). While I'll concur that we're probably not in crisis mode yet, where we need to worry about defaulting on the debt, continued aid to Ukraine is particularly frustrating when 70% of Americans want talks to end the war in Ukraine (https://responsiblestatecraft.org/ukraine-peace-talks-poll/). This is something I think we've already discussed, but I'm at the point where I want the focus to be on diplomacy to end the war - with compromises from all sides. I'd be less irritated with the aid if the signal and message was that we were simply providing them aid as a stopgap measure while we directed diplomatic resources to reach a compromise with Russia and Ukraine and end the war. That doesn't appear to be the goal though, per the following quote from the linked article:

QuoteThe Biden administration has publicly rejected the idea of negotiating an end to the war with Russia, with U.S. officials saying that they are prepared to back Ukraine "as long as it takes" to achieve the country's goal of ejecting Russian troops from all of its territory, including Crimea.

I don't know if you'd agree, but I just don't think that goal is realistic. I think we're long past the point of expelling Russian troops from all Ukranian territory being achievable. If it isn't realistically achievable, then this aid seems like money down the drain - a sunk-cost fallacy in action. That is of course, if the publicly stated goals are the true goals, and not, as often happens with war, an opportunity seized upon by bad actors to line their own pockets. Respected investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, yes, the same Seymour Hersh who exposed the My Lai massacre and the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh), recently wrote an article on his Substack (https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/trading-with-the-enemy) that contains some information that is pretty damning, including that Ukraine is using US aid to buy diesel from Russia. Unfortunately, you need to start a subscription to read the whole article, but I'll include a quote from what is available without doing that below, with bold emphasis in spots of interest:

Quote from: Seymour Hersh; 'Trading With the Enemy'What also is unknown is that Zelensky has been buying the fuel from Russia, the country with which it, and Washington, are at war, and the Ukrainian president and many in his entourage have been skimming untold millions from the American dollars earmarked for diesel fuel payments. One estimate by analysts from the Central Intelligence Agency put the embezzled funds at $400 million last year, at least; another expert compared the level of corruption in Kiev as approaching that of the Afghan war, "although there will be no professional audit reports emerging from the Ukraine."

"Zelensky's been buying discount diesel from the Russians," one knowledgeable American intelligence official told me. "And who's paying for the gas and oil? We are. Putin and his oligarchs are making millions" on it.

Many government ministries in Kiev have been literally "competing," I was told, to set up front companies for export contracts for weapons and ammunition with private arms dealers around the world, all of which provide kickbacks. Many of those companies are in Poland and Czechia, but others are thought to exist in the Persian Gulf and Israel. "I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there are others in places like the Cayman Islands and Panama, and there are lots of Americans involved," an American expert on international trade told me.

The issue of corruption was directly raised with Zelensky in a meeting last January in Kiev with CIA Director William Burns. His message to the Ukrainian president, I was told by an intelligence official with direct knowledge of the meeting, was out of a 1950s mob movie. The senior generals and government officials in Kiev were angry at what they saw as Zelensky's greed, so Burns told the Ukrainian president, because "he was taking a larger share of the skim money than was going to the generals."

Burns also presented Zelensky with a list of thirty-five generals and senior officials whose corruption was known to the CIA and others in the American government. Zelensky responded to the American pressure ten days later by publicly dismissing ten of the most ostentatious officials on the list and doing little else. "The ten he got rid of were brazenly bragging about the money they had—driving around Kiev in their new Mercedes," the intelligence official told me.

So what I gather from this, assuming it's all true (and given Seymour Hersh's track record, I'm inclined to think it is), is that our American tax dollars are getting sent to Ukraine, a country we've long known to be politically corrupt, and there's little oversight or at least enforcement on how that money is used. Putin and his goons (who are supposed to be our geopolitical enemies) are making millions off us as Zelensky uses our money to buy diesel from Russia. Zelensky and his generals, for their part, are also embezzling hundreds of millions off the aid we send them (and that's just last year) to personally enrich themselves, as his generals brag about it and drive around Kiev in their shiny new Mercedes. And of course, private weapons contractors, as long as the war keeps going, get to make their money too. As all this goes on, our congressmen and congresswomen cheer and applaud and wave Ukrainian flags in the US House Chamber as they vote to send another $61 billion to Ukraine:



https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1781767781945360480

As Smedley Butler once said: "War is a racket"

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 22, 2024, 04:20 AMLike I said when I posted the chart, it shows percentage statistics. If you just look at it and say "Which bar is biggest?" then it could be misleading, but it doesn't have to be treated skepticism; plenty of people understand the difference between proportional and net figures. Yes, the US sends the biggest chunk of cash, but like in many areas of countries joining together to fund international causes, the fairest principle is some proportional system. Or what? The USA and Malta (pop. = 0.4 million) should pay the same towards, I don't know, cancer research, NATO or whatever ?

That's fair I suppose, and I understand where you're coming from, but it does ignore the debt-to-GDP ratios of the countries involved, which would ignore how fiscally wise it might be for each given country to provide that aid. For example, Sweden and Lithuania both have a debt-to-GDP ratio of around 35% (very healthy fiscal situation) while America has a debt-to-GDP ratio of over 120% (not so healthy fiscal situation).

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 22, 2024, 04:20 AMI don't know who is more surprised at the phrase "can so quickly": me or Zelenskyy ;)

Trust me, compared to the usual seemingly endless bickering between R's and D's to get anything useful done domestically, the aid to Ukraine was done quickly!  ;)

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 22, 2024, 04:20 AMPerhaps we should agree to differ on this one, SGR, because I'm too tired to explore RFKJ's record - but it looks like Trollheart has done some research, and his mention of "Covid-denying" is another red flag against the guy.   

That's fine. To be frank, I haven't really made up my mind about RFK Jr. in totality. As I mentioned to Lexi, I haven't followed him as closely as I have Trump/Biden. He's a very interesting wildcard. Believe me, there's a lot of things I disagree with him on politically. But when I've listened to him speak, I can't help but get the feeling that deep down, he is a good man who genuinely wants what he believes is best for the country. Does that mean he is a good man? Not necessarily. Does that mean he's right about what is best for the country? Probably not, at least not in total. But there is an authenticity I get from him that I get from very few US politicians. That whole ethnically targeted COVID stuff for example, that was presented by many as showcasing RFK Jr's antisemitism - I believe him when he came out and apologized and said he in no way meant what he said in an anti-semitic fashion, and that he shouldn't have said it, because he could see how some might take it to mean something which he didn't mean. Perhaps others get the same feeling of genuineness and authenticity from him and that's why he has as much support as he does, despite less media coverage and his obvious voice issue. Who knows, maybe I'm just easily duped.  :laughing:

Trump Doubles Down That RFK Jr. Is 'Most Radical Left Candidate' (https://www.forbes.com/sites/caileygleeson/2024/04/11/trump-doubles-down-that-rfk-jr-is-most-radical-left-candidate-id-vote-for-rfk-jr-every-single-time-over-biden/?sh=3a9effe868f7)

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Apr 22, 2024, 06:45 PMTrump Doubles Down That RFK Jr. Is 'Most Radical Left Candidate' (https://www.forbes.com/sites/caileygleeson/2024/04/11/trump-doubles-down-that-rfk-jr-is-most-radical-left-candidate-id-vote-for-rfk-jr-every-single-time-over-biden/?sh=3a9effe868f7)

Trump calls him 'radical left', it would be hilarious if Biden came out and called him a 'right wing conspiracy filled nutjob'.  :laughing:

Depending on who he ends up taking more votes from, someone will probably regret giving him more attention. I could see Biden not addressing him at all and pretending he doesn't exist. That's honestly probably the smart play.

I'm skeptical presidential debates will even happen, but man it would be interesting if RFK Jr was up on the stage with Trump/Biden (I'm confident that won't happen).

First off, @SGR , no problem with the gif. I do that, too, though I didn't understand why you and this Steve Harley sorry Harvey were so dumbstruck, and thanks @Lexi Darling  for helping to clear it up for me. Been transferring my journals all last week and today; getting close to having them all up to date, but it's been keeping me from checking out/responding to threads.

I used to post in an admittedly pretty left-wing, liberal forum called - ah damn I forget, but it was one of those places where they post all the fuck Trump stuff. I learned through bitter experience though that they were, or are, in their way, as close-minded and ready to stab you if you stick one toe out of line (as they see it) when I was banned. Yeah, me! Banned! Have you ever met a nicer, less offensive person, not counting Lisna? Yet they banned me. Long story. Anyway (what the hell was the name of that place? I just seem to have gone blank on it. It'll come to me) it was there that I first learned of RFKJ, who was actually taking legal action against them for posting perfectly legitimate pictures of his taking part in a Nazi rally, or rather, for refusing to reveal the source that posted them. They have a back-and-forth with him, but again it was there that I had learned the family had disowned him and accused him of shitting on the proud legacy of the Kennedys.

Okay, I looked it up. Daily KOS, that was it. Here's the story, sent to me in email format way back in 2022, obviously before they banned this dangerous radical from their site!



Nazi-cavorter Robert Kennedy is suing Daily Kos. Here's where things currently stand:
Inbox

Daily Kos <campaigns@dailykos.com> Unsubscribe
Tue, 25 Jan 2022, 15:09
to me

Deryck, at an anti-vax rally over the weekend in Washington, D.C., Robert F. Kennedy Jr. compared the current pandemic safety policies to Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. Except, according to Kennedy, it was easier to escape the Holocaust, saying "Even in Hitler's Germany, you could cross the Alps into Switzerland, you could hide in an attic like Anne Frank did" (ignoring the fact that Anne Frank died in a concentration camp). He followed that up with a tirade about 5G and satellites tracking our every move.

Unlike in Nazi Germany, Kennedy can freely spew his conspiracy theories and exploit one of the greatest human tragedies in history into a microphone in the middle of the nation's capital—it's one of those rights granted to us in the Bill of Rights. Yet, this man is suing Daily Kos to reveal the identity of a user who wrote about Kennedy's participation in an anti-mask rally in Germany that was organized and attended by Nazis. A story that was also reported by many major media outlets.

Daily Kos is now in the second year of defending Kennedy's frivolous lawsuit to protect the privacy of our community and our First Amendment rights. The lawsuit now spans two coasts--in courts in both New York and California—and it is getting costly. But we refuse to back down from Kennedy's bullying.

Unfortunately, Kennedy comes from one of those American dynasty families and has unlimited financial resources. Unlike Kennedy, nearly half of our revenue comes from thousands of grassroots supporters chipping in a few dollars at a time. Help fund our legal efforts against Robert Kennedy Jr. a dangerous, life-threatening conspiracy theorist, by donating $5 to Daily Kos today.

Quote from: Trollheart on Apr 23, 2024, 01:55 AMFirst off, @SGR , no problem with the gif. I do that, too, though I didn't understand why you and this Steve Harley sorry Harvey were so dumbstruck.

It was a combination of my lack of familiarity with Kennedy and some of what he's said (and his controversies) and not being able to connect the dots with what you said, essentially. Steve Harley... :laughing:

Quote from: Trollheart on Apr 23, 2024, 01:55 AMand thanks @Lexi Darling  for helping to clear it up for me. Been transferring my journals all last week and today; getting close to having them all up to date, but it's been keeping me from checking out/responding to threads.

I used to post in an admittedly pretty left-wing, liberal forum called - ah damn I forget, but it was one of those places where they post all the fuck Trump stuff. I learned through bitter experience though that they were, or are, in their way, as close-minded and ready to stab you if you stick one toe out of line (as they see it) when I was banned. Yeah, me! Banned! Have you ever met a nicer, less offensive person, not counting Lisna? Yet they banned me. Long story.

That's certainly not unheard of, especially among the left as of late. It more than likely factors into why many lefties shunned Hillary and decided to either not vote, vote for Trump or vote third party - and also why some are planning to either not vote for Biden or vote third party now. You were 'morally outbid', Trolls.  :laughing:

Purity spiral - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purity_spiral#:~:text=A%20purity%20spiral%20is%20a,called%20%22moral%20outbidding%22).)

Quote from: Trollheart on Apr 23, 2024, 01:55 AMAnyway (what the hell was the name of that place? I just seem to have gone blank on it. It'll come to me) it was there that I first learned of RFKJ, who was actually taking legal action against them for posting perfectly legitimate pictures of his taking part in a Nazi rally, or rather, for refusing to reveal the source that posted them. They have a back-and-forth with him, but again it was there that I had learned the family had disowned him and accused him of shitting on the proud legacy of the Kennedys.

Okay, I looked it up. Daily KOS, that was it. Here's the story, sent to me in email format way back in 2022, obviously before they banned this dangerous radical from their site!



Nazi-cavorter Robert Kennedy is suing Daily Kos. Here's where things currently stand:
Inbox

Daily Kos <campaigns@dailykos.com> Unsubscribe
Tue, 25 Jan 2022, 15:09
to me

Deryck, at an anti-vax rally over the weekend in Washington, D.C., Robert F. Kennedy Jr. compared the current pandemic safety policies to Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. Except, according to Kennedy, it was easier to escape the Holocaust, saying "Even in Hitler's Germany, you could cross the Alps into Switzerland, you could hide in an attic like Anne Frank did" (ignoring the fact that Anne Frank died in a concentration camp). He followed that up with a tirade about 5G and satellites tracking our every move.

Unlike in Nazi Germany, Kennedy can freely spew his conspiracy theories and exploit one of the greatest human tragedies in history into a microphone in the middle of the nation's capital—it's one of those rights granted to us in the Bill of Rights. Yet, this man is suing Daily Kos to reveal the identity of a user who wrote about Kennedy's participation in an anti-mask rally in Germany that was organized and attended by Nazis. A story that was also reported by many major media outlets.

Daily Kos is now in the second year of defending Kennedy's frivolous lawsuit to protect the privacy of our community and our First Amendment rights. The lawsuit now spans two coasts--in courts in both New York and California—and it is getting costly. But we refuse to back down from Kennedy's bullying.

Unfortunately, Kennedy comes from one of those American dynasty families and has unlimited financial resources. Unlike Kennedy, nearly half of our revenue comes from thousands of grassroots supporters chipping in a few dollars at a time. Help fund our legal efforts against Robert Kennedy Jr. a dangerous, life-threatening conspiracy theorist, by donating $5 to Daily Kos today.

Interesting, I hadn't heard of this. But what gives rise to characterizing the people of this rally as 'nazis'? What positions do they hold? I'm guessing it wasn't as obvious as they were flying swastika flags (because that's banned in Germany) - if their primary reason for being there was because they were anti-mask or anti-lockdown, that's a hard-sell as a 'nazi' to me, particularly coming from the Daily Kos, which, while I'm no regular reader - I'm familiar enough with to know their bias is rather far left (https://www.allsides.com/news-source/daily-kos), they're like the 'Breitbart' of the left. Again, I'm not very familiar with the situation or the rally, maybe there's a good reason to suspect they're nazis that I'm not aware of.

I'm digging. Here are a few:
 Auschwitz Memorial respond as Kennedy compares vaccine mandates to holocaust (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/1/24/2076463/-Robert-Kennedy-Jr-Anti-vaxxers-these-days-are-worse-off-than-Anne-Frank?detail=emailaction&link_id=0&can_id=8f1be5c2b7ce8d9d9ea7107533568f8f&source=email-nazi-cavorter-robert-kennedy-is-suing-daily-kos-heres-where-things-currently-stand-2&email_referrer=email_1420461&email_subject=nazi-cavorter-robert-kennedy-is-suing-daily-kos-heres-where-things-currently-stand)

I guess not swastikas, but here's what they said:

The protest was organized by right-wing extremist organizations- including the AfD party and various anti-Semitic conspiracy groups as well as the neo-Nazi NPD party.

Among the speakers was Robert F. Kennedy Jr.. who warned against the "totalitarianism" of Angela Merkel.

"He sounded the alarm concerning the 5G mobile network and Microsoft founder Bill Gates.  Referring to the famous Berlin speech of his uncle JFK he said 'Today Berlin is is once again the front against totalitarianism.'"

Protester were seen carrying poster urging "Trump, Please Help"  with the QAnon logo.

As for me, I was on notice after calling someone a "right wing bitch" (they didn't like the b-word and I had to apologise). Next thing I posted my American West journal, and because I used the word "savage" about the Native Americans it was called racist and pulled. Even though the word was clearly in quotes, to show I did not agree and was making a point. I replied, explaining this (though it should have been obvious) and asking the editor if he understood what context was? Next time I tried to post I was advised I had been banned. Idiots. Didn't want their stupid lefty forum anyway.

Yuck. Litigation like that seems such a bullying tactic. I obviously don't know the story or what really happened, but if you're a politician joining a public demonstration, that does sound like a matter of public interest and fair game for news reports. But then I guess litigation is used to scare or bully whether they're right or wrong.

About your ban, they didn't deserve you, @Trollheart.

Biden implied his uncle lost in WWII was eaten by cannibals. Papua New Guinea's leader pushes back. (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/papua-new-guinea-james-marape-joe-biden-uncle-cannibals-comment/)

Quote from: Guybrush on Apr 23, 2024, 08:32 AMYuck. Litigation like that seems such a bullying tactic. I obviously don't know the story or what really happened, but if you're a politician joining a public demonstration, that does sound like a matter of public interest and fair game for news reports. But then I guess litigation is used to scare or bully whether they're right or wrong.

About your ban, they didn't deserve you, @Trollheart.

Thanks man. What really grinds my gears is that I made a very formal, public and quite embarrassing apology about the b-word, and they STILL banned me! Looks like they were just looking for an excuse, as some other opinions in my other journals hadn't gone down too well. I was even told it was not my  place to write a history of America, as I was not American! In terms of their mindset, and I told them this (which may have led to the ban too) they were being as close-minded and as speech-censoring as the Republicans and Trump supporters they claimed to hate. Two sides of the one coin, very ugly. Ah well, as Jesus said in the New Testament, fuck those guys.

Quote from: Trollheart on Apr 23, 2024, 03:55 AMI'm digging. Here are a few:
 Auschwitz Memorial respond as Kennedy compares vaccine mandates to holocaust (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/1/24/2076463/-Robert-Kennedy-Jr-Anti-vaxxers-these-days-are-worse-off-than-Anne-Frank?detail=emailaction&link_id=0&can_id=8f1be5c2b7ce8d9d9ea7107533568f8f&source=email-nazi-cavorter-robert-kennedy-is-suing-daily-kos-heres-where-things-currently-stand-2&email_referrer=email_1420461&email_subject=nazi-cavorter-robert-kennedy-is-suing-daily-kos-heres-where-things-currently-stand)

I guess not swastikas, but here's what they said:

The protest was organized by right-wing extremist organizations- including the AfD party and various anti-Semitic conspiracy groups as well as the neo-Nazi NPD party.

Among the speakers was Robert F. Kennedy Jr.. who warned against the "totalitarianism" of Angela Merkel.

"He sounded the alarm concerning the 5G mobile network and Microsoft founder Bill Gates.  Referring to the famous Berlin speech of his uncle JFK he said 'Today Berlin is is once again the front against totalitarianism.'"

Protester were seen carrying poster urging "Trump, Please Help"  with the QAnon logo.

As for me, I was on notice after calling someone a "right wing bitch" (they didn't like the b-word and I had to apologise). Next thing I posted my American West journal, and because I used the word "savage" about the Native Americans it was called racist and pulled. Even though the word was clearly in quotes, to show I did not agree and was making a point. I replied, explaining this (though it should have been obvious) and asking the editor if he understood what context was? Next time I tried to post I was advised I had been banned. Idiots. Didn't want their stupid lefty forum anyway.

I'm gonna have to claim ignorance on those far right German parties, as I'm in the dark there. I'll have to do some reading on that. Comparing vaccine mandates to the holocaust though is just nonsensical. Obviously, RFK Jr can say whatever he wants, but if he's serious about gaining support/voters, saying things like that makes him look like a non-serious candidate. Doesn't he have someone whispering in his ear and coaching him on his speeches? Comparisons like that is just a completely unforced error. Sloppy (similar to his comments on COVID and it being genetically targeted).

Isn't it just the Trumpification of the political rhetoric? Just say whatever crazy shit gets people riled up. There's hardly any accountability for past utterings anyways, so why not.

Quote from: Guybrush on Apr 23, 2024, 08:30 PMIsn't it just the Trumpification of the political rhetoric? Just say whatever crazy shit gets people riled up. There's hardly any accountability for past utterings anyways, so why not.

That's certainly a frame you could look at it through. Maybe the poor analogy was completely intentional because he knew it would make some headlines and get him some attention. And when you're running as an independent in America, you kinda need all the press you can get. But is all press 'good press'? I find that adage to not always be true - but maybe it's true in this particular case - and maybe my previous comment (that it was an 'unforced error') was looking at it wrong, and perhaps it wasn't an error at all. After all, here we all are talking about him because of it.

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Apr 23, 2024, 03:06 PMBiden implied his uncle lost in WWII was eaten by cannibals. Papua New Guinea's leader pushes back. (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/papua-new-guinea-james-marape-joe-biden-uncle-cannibals-comment/)

Now imagine the shitfest if Trump had come out with that. You'd never hear the end of it for racism accusations.

Wasn't it Frank Zappa who had a song or album called Uncle Meat?  :laughing:  :laughing:  :laughing:

Hmmm, given that Pecker is being forced to stand trial and spill the beans on Trump, could it fairly be said that the judge in this case is 'grabbing Trump by the Pecker'?

Second day of Pecker testimony wraps in Trump's hush money trial (https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4614711-trump-hush-money-trial-live-updates/)

And let's not even get started with all the 'gag' orders...

Considering Trump's infamous "you can grab them by the colloquial name for a cat" tape, I think that's a case of turnabout is fair play.

Very interesting to read about your experiences in that Daily Kos forum, Trollheart! Guybrush says, they didn't deserve you.

Thanks for the wiki link to "Purity Spiral", SGR: it's good to have a term for something that is surprisingly common in political, religious groups. The Communist Party in the 1930s suffered from this syndrome big time, and I see it alive today with Majorie Taylor Green's threats to oust Speaker Johnson, ( if I am understanding the concept right.)

Quote from: jimmy jazz on Apr 23, 2024, 10:07 PMNow imagine the shitfest if Trump had come out with that. You'd never hear the end of it for racism accusations.

There wouldn't be any with his supporters. Just the media outlets for a few days and then it would be forgotten. Just like he said he could walk in a busy tourist area and shoot someone and still get away with it.

Quote from: SGR on Apr 24, 2024, 12:15 AMHmmm, given that Pecker is being forced to stand trial and spill the beans on Trump, could it fairly be said that the judge in this case is 'grabbing Trump by the Pecker'?

Second day of Pecker testimony wraps in Trump's hush money trial (https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4614711-trump-hush-money-trial-live-updates/)

And let's not even get started with all the 'gag' orders...

Trump gagged & hit by Pecker

That would be my headline if I was a writer for the New York Post.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Apr 24, 2024, 11:42 AMThere wouldn't be any with his supporters. Just the media outlets for a few days and then it would be forgotten. Just like he said he could walk in a busy tourist area and shoot someone and still get away with it.

Yeah his supporters wouldn't but I'm talking about everyone else. This is exactly what I meant when I said Biden gets a pass and an easy ride. He saw Papau New Guinea and thought 'cannibals'. If Trump had done that it'd be all over the news, social media and celebrities would be speaking out against it, like what happened with the shithole countries comment or when he said Mexicans were sending their worst over the border.

Quote from: jimmy jazz on Apr 23, 2024, 10:07 PMNow imagine the shitfest if Trump had come out with that. You'd never hear the end of it for racism accusations.

New Yorkers SHOCKED by These REAL Joe Biden Quotes

How Idaho 'fraudster' wormed his way into Donald Trump's inner circle, 'scammed thousands of dollars in phony political donations' and even faked cancer treatment to swindle wealthy Mar-a-Lago members (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13319915/Fraudster-Jesse-Taylor-infiltrated-Donald-Trump-inner-circle-scammed-donations.html)

This guy lookin like the love child of Rand Paul and Gilderoy Lockhart (Harry Potter): :laughing:

(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2024/04/17/20/83778915-13319915-image-a-21_1713383311591.jpg)

Rand:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Rand_Paul_Official_Portrait.jpg)

Gilderoy:

(https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/hostedimages/1525724160i/25500137._SY540_.jpg)

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Apr 24, 2024, 12:51 PMTrump gagged & hit by Pecker

That would be my headline if I was a writer for the New York Post.

Oh man, that's good. There's probably a lot of hilarious ones that could be come up with:

Pecker unloads on Trump pornstar tryst  :laughing:

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 24, 2024, 02:45 AMVery interesting to read about your experiences in that Daily Kos forum, Trollheart! Guybrush says, they didn't deserve you.

Thanks for the wiki link to "Purity Spiral", SGR: it's good to have a term for something that is surprisingly common in political, religious groups. The Communist Party in the 1930s suffered from this syndrome big time, and I see it alive today with Majorie Taylor Green's threats to oust Speaker Johnson, ( if I am understanding the concept right.)

I was thinking it might even be a better fit for what happened in the USSR in the 1920s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin%27s_rise_to_power), as Stalin fought back against his left opposition (led by Trotsky) that were more of the mind of international socialism and expansion, while Stalin essentially wanted to fortify their own territory and achieve industrial strength first. Later in the 20s, Stalin and his allies fought back against Right-leaning opposition of his party that opposed greater central control of the economy and collectivization practices. Stalin was a monster, no doubt, and there's no way to know how things would've ultimately turned out - but I think it's certainly possible that if Trotsky won out over Stalin and assumed control of the country, the toll on human lives may have been even worse. Additionally, who knows, if all things remained the same, if Russia would've been able to win out against the Nazis, and how a potential alliance with them would have manifested.

To your point, I think the divide in the Republican party could be described as a purity spiral.

Quote from: SGR on Apr 24, 2024, 04:30 PMOh man, that's good. There's probably a lot of hilarious ones that could be come up with:

Pecker unloads on Trump pornstar tryst  :laughing:

Trump held by Pecker
Pecker forced to stand
Pecker flip-flops
Trump has Pecker problems
No cure for Trump's Pecker ailment

I'm here all week. Unless they manage to break the door down...

Trump takes it on the chin as Pecker spills (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/david-pecker-testimony-trump-trial-reveals-seedy-underbelly-tabloid-jo-rcna149507)

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Apr 27, 2024, 01:49 PMTrump takes it on the chin as Pecker spills (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/david-pecker-testimony-trump-trial-reveals-seedy-underbelly-tabloid-jo-rcna149507)

Now there's a headline!  :laughing:

President Joe Biden says he's 'happy to debate' Donald Trump. Trump says he's ready to go (https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-debates-97c527d59bac59c06d2ee0e1edb81d9b)

My money is still on the debates not happening.

But boy I sure hope I'm wrong.

White House plans to limit Biden's graduation speeches as campuses erupt in protests (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/white-house-plans-limit-bidens-graduation-speeches-campuses-erupt-prot-rcna149137)

QuoteWASHINGTON — Amid growing protests on college campuses by pro-Palestinian demonstrators, the White House is planning for President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris to have a minimal presence for a traditional rite of spring: delivering commencement addresses.

Faculty at historically black Morehouse College revolt over Biden commencement invite — some refuse to sit with President (https://nypost.com/2024/04/27/us-news/morehouse-college-faces-revolt-over-biden-invite/)

QuoteFaculty at Morehouse College are in uproar over plans for President Biden to deliver the school's commencement address next month.

Professors at the historically black college say Biden's ongoing support or Israel amid the war in Gaza is too much, with some saying they will not be seen next to the Democratic president.

"I've spoken with several faculty members who say under no conditions are they going to sit on a stage with Joe Biden," Andrew Douglas, a political science professor at Morehouse told NBC. "It's on everybody's mind."

Bad news for Biden.

Exclusive poll: America warms to mass deportations (https://www.axios.com/2024/04/25/trump-biden-americans-illegal-immigration-poll)

(https://cms.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/axios%20am.JPG?itok=6Ioq4xcE)

42% of Democrats supporting mass deportation of undocumented immigrants is wild.

Quote from: 'Axios'Americans are open to former President Trump's harshest immigration plans, spurred on by a record surge of illegal border crossings and a relentless messaging war waged by Republicans.

President Biden is keenly aware the crisis threatens his re-election. He's sought to flip the script by accusing Trump of sabotaging Congress' most conservative bipartisan immigration bill in decades.
But when it comes to blame, Biden so far has failed to shift the narrative: 32% of respondents say his administration is "most responsible" for the crisis, outranking any other political or structural factor.

More bad news for Biden...

Biden's 13th-Quarter Approval Average Lowest Historically (https://news.gallup.com/poll/644252/biden-13th-quarter-approval-average-lowest-historically.aspx)

QuoteWASHINGTON, D.C. -- President Joe Biden averaged 38.7% job approval during his recently completed 13th quarter in office, which began on Jan. 20 and ended April 19. None of the other nine presidents elected to their first term since Dwight Eisenhower had a lower 13th-quarter average than Biden.

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Apr 27, 2024, 11:22 PMMore bad news for Biden...

Biden's 13th-Quarter Approval Average Lowest Historically (https://news.gallup.com/poll/644252/biden-13th-quarter-approval-average-lowest-historically.aspx)

(https://media.tenor.com/JPkESyIjgKkAAAAM/joe-biden.gif)

Everyone knows that among presidents who are 80 years old or older, Biden's 13th quarter approval ranking actually ranks HIGHEST historically!

(https://media4.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExZHNkd2FxMWVkcHM4OGNxOXY3bWtwYmdiN245Y2xtMzFxZ3Z2a2I2eSZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/ktfInKGOVkdQtwJy9h/giphy.gif)

Trump and DeSantis, once GOP rivals, meet in South Florida to talk about 2024 election (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-desantis-meeting-florida/)

RFK Jr. challenges Trump to debate after 'Democrat plant' accusation (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rfk-jr-challenges-trump-debate-democrat-plant-accusation)

Quote"When frightened men take to social media they risk descending into vitriol, which makes them sound unhinged," Kennedy wrote in an X post on Saturday afternoon. "President Trump's rant against me is a barely coherent barrage of wild and inaccurate claims that should best be resolved in the American tradition of presidential debate. President Trump, who has proven himself the most adept debater in modern American political history, should not be panicked to meet me on that stage."

This would be stupid for Trump to agree to (because really, the only upside here is for RFK Jr, with little to no upside for Trump). Still, I'd love to see it happen. I wanna see Trump and RFK Jr debate about all these aliens/UFOs we keep hearing about. And it would be quite something to see RFK Jr. put Trump in a position where he has to defend and support the COVID-19 vaccine.

(https://mediaproxy.salon.com/width/1200/https://media2.salon.com/2023/07/donald_trump_rfk_1272685148_1543053033_1148109735.jpg)

Quote from: SGR on Apr 29, 2024, 03:56 PMRFK Jr. challenges Trump to debate after 'Democrat plant' accusation (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rfk-jr-challenges-trump-debate-democrat-plant-accusation)

This would be stupid for Trump to agree to (because really, the only upside here is for RFK Jr, with little to no upside for Trump). Still, I'd love to see it happen. I wanna see Trump and RFK Jr debate about all these aliens/UFOs we keep hearing about. And it would be quite something to see RFK Jr. put Trump in a position where he has to defend and support the COVID-19 vaccine.

(https://mediaproxy.salon.com/width/1200/https://media2.salon.com/2023/07/donald_trump_rfk_1272685148_1543053033_1148109735.jpg)

That bit about Trump being the most adept debater: that's clearly him having a laugh, no? Trump couldn't debate his way out of a paper bag.  Mind you, place "mast" in front of the word and maybe he's on to something...

To his fans Trump is the best debater by default because they're in a cult that is convinced that anyone debating him is just a lying agent of the deep state shadow government.

You win every contest if you can convince your supporters that you're the only fair player.

Quote from: Trollheart on Apr 29, 2024, 06:11 PMThat bit about Trump being the most adept debater: that's clearly him having a laugh, no? Trump couldn't debate his way out of a paper bag.  Mind you, place "mast" in front of the word and maybe he's on to something...

I think it's an appeal to Trump's ego and part of the challenge itself. Imagine you're the fastest kid in a small school (or at least, you think you are) and everyone knows it. A new kid starts coming to the school. Then, in front of the class, the new kid says to the fast kid: "I challenge you to a race at recess. Since you're the fastest kid in school, you should have no problem beating me, right?"

Quote from: Trollheart on Apr 29, 2024, 06:11 PMThat bit about Trump being the most adept debater: that's clearly him having a laugh, no? Trump couldn't debate his way out of a paper bag.  Mind you, place "mast" in front of the word and maybe he's on to something...

I think they meant to say entertaining debater. He runs circles around most politicians. There might not be substance but there is flash and he creates buzzworthy clips for days after.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Apr 29, 2024, 11:53 PMI think they meant to say entertaining debater. He runs circles around most politicians. There might not be substance but there is flash and he creates buzzworthy clips for days after.

That's a very fair assessment. Trump can make many of the establishment politicians look foolish and inept not by engaging in the real substance of the debate, but rather by taking shots at their integrity (of which most politicians have none) or their past or their insecurities (which often includes their physical appearance). Trump comes from a media/TV background. He knows how to handle media optics in a way that gives him an edge over many politicians. The 2016 Republican debates will forever be some of the most ridiculously entertaining political spectacles America had the (mis?)fortune of witnessing:



The underlying problem is that people don't vote (by and large) based on a logical calculation of policy proposals, but rather based on their emotions. I think Trump realized this, leveraged it, and that's why he was able to win in 2016. Perception is reality for better or worse. Politics has always had an element of bloodsports to it. Trump amplified this further than we've so far seen. Which again raises the interesting question of what the GOP will do when he's out of the picture.

Inside the National Enquirer's hunt for a 'blockbuster' Trump story (https://abcnews.go.com/US/inside-national-enquirers-hunt-blockbuster-trump-story/story?id=109797235)

I've heard this said in a couple different ways now, but I think there's definitely some truth to it.

The Republicans have nominated the only candidate who could possibly lose to Joe Biden.

And the Democrats have nominated the only candidate who could possibly lose to Donald Trump.

 :laughing:

South Dakota Gov. Noem admits error of describing meeting North Korea's Kim Jong Un in new book (https://apnews.com/article/kristi-noem-book-north-korea-90e61965e9ac486e52cec5b35da41f47)

lol Kristi Noem didn't read her own book before it was released.  :laughing: How the hell did the ghostwriter include a completely fictitious story about meeting Kim Jong Un? I'd be curious who the ghostwriter was, because it seems like this mistake was intentional to take Kristi Noem out of VP contention.

Yeah, she ain't getting Trump's VP spot. Especially after the 'dog story'.

Quote from: SGR on May 06, 2024, 07:26 PMSouth Dakota Gov. Noem admits error of describing meeting North Korea's Kim Jong Un in new book (https://apnews.com/article/kristi-noem-book-north-korea-90e61965e9ac486e52cec5b35da41f47)

lol Kristi Noem didn't read her own book before it was released.  :laughing: How the hell did the ghostwriter include a completely fictitious story about meeting Kim Jong Un? I'd be curious who the ghostwriter was, because it seems like this mistake was intentional to take Kristi Noem out of VP contention.

Yeah, she ain't getting Trump's VP spot. Especially after the 'dog story'.

Come on now: don't you know that the divine Kim can be wherever he wants to be, even if he wasn't born yet? This is the man, remember, who, having never picked up a golf club before, scored eighteen holes-in-one on his very first try, and then retired from golf forever! If he wanted to be there, you can bet he was there. She probably just doesn't remember it because his awesome presence so overpowered her that it shorted out her memory.

Or maybe he had one of these.
(https://media.tenor.com/2jDvQSfU3lUAAAAM/men-in-black.gif)

Well, we've had enough of Pecker on the stand, so now we get to hear from a porn star (https://apnews.com/article/stormy-daniels-donald-trump-trial-takeaways-f34f094124fc7ec455d6a73cbb6eec21). Gag orders abound! Though there may have been some awkwardness and some sexual dissatisfaction, we've now settled it once and for all: there was no erection interference.

(https://preview.redd.it/fjjzg4qz7baz.jpg?auto=webp&s=6b84147bbd3d102feb2b780df009ada092e33cb4)

In other news, apparently a worm ate part of RFK Jr's brain (https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/08/rfk-jr-brain-worm-00156794). Now let me ask you, my fellow Americans; being president may be a job like no other, but it's still a job nonetheless. Even if you're not a business owner, I'm sure you've hired people to do a job before. Maybe a plumber to fix your pipes for example. Maybe you had only three plumbers in your town. Still, did you ever need to ask yourself: "Well, I've got three plumbers here who could do this job...but do any of them still have a functioning brain?"

Moving on, the federal court case against Trump for mishandling classified documents has been indefinitely delayed by the judge (https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/07/politics/judge-postpones-trump-classified-documents-trial/index.html). And why might you ask? Well, it appears the prosecution/special counsel mishandled the classified documents and misled the judge (https://www.ntd.com/special-counsel-jack-smith-admits-prosecutors-misled-judge-in-trump-case_990699.html) and there are too many questions surrounding this to continue the case at this juncture. But not to worry, I'm sure once another independent special counsel is tasked with investigating whether or not this special counsel mishandled the classified documents in the case against Trump for mishandling classified documents, we'll hastily be back in the courtroom!

Stay tuned folks, as is your duty as proud Americans, things can only get more exciting from here!

(https://media0.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExNDJsenB4N2ZwZ242eXN6ODJuZGFzdzUyODE1MWduNG84YWJqOXR1YSZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/14B1JWOH17oJlscPGK/giphy.gif)

I like this! Witty, sarcastic and cutting observations from the man on the ground (well, in the garden anyway, and I don't mean the Rose one) - always liked your writing style, SGR, and I'd definitely come back to check out more of your "updates" in this thread, so hope you considering making this a regular thing!

Quote from: Trollheart on May 08, 2024, 07:51 PMI like this! Witty, sarcastic and cutting observations from the man on the ground (well, in the garden anyway, and I don't mean the Rose one) - always liked your writing style, SGR, and I'd definitely come back to check out more of your "updates" in this thread, so hope you considering making this a regular thing!

Thanks Trolls! I had a lot of fun writing it, so maybe I'll make it a regular thing. Can't force it though. The stories have to be right, and the jokes will have to come to me, but this definitely won't be the last time I do a spoof of the presidential race news. I will certainly not be bereft of material to work with, that's for sure. :laughing:

You mentioned a parasite, so I ofc latched on to that bit.

The brain eating worm is probably the common pork tapeworm. It has a stage where it lives in the intestine, which is what people know about, but that stage produces eggs that hatch into another stage, a stage that makes a smaller worm that burrows into tissues and lives inside the cyst it creates there.

If people ingest those eggs, say from drinking water contaminated with faeces containing tapeworm eggs, those worms can end up in the brain - or in the eyes even.

It really is awful and so if you want something new to keep you up at night, just Google pork tapeworm brain.

Quote from: Guybrush on May 09, 2024, 07:43 AMYou mentioned a parasite, so I ofc latched on to that bit.

The brain eating worm is probably the common pork tapeworm. It has a stage where it lives in the intestine, which is what people know about, but that stage produces eggs that hatch into another stage, a stage that makes a smaller worm that burrows into tissues and lives inside the cyst it creates there.

If people ingest those eggs, say from drinking water contaminated with faeces containing tapeworm eggs, those worms can end up in the brain - or in the eyes even.

It really is awful and so if you want something new to keep you up at night, just Google pork tapeworm brain.

Thanks Guy, I was on the fence about skipping breakfast, but now I think I can skip lunch too.  ;D

Quote from: SGR on May 09, 2024, 03:05 PMThanks Guy, I was on the fence about skipping breakfast, but now I think I can skip lunch too.  ;D

good thing you weren't eating while reading.

Lesson learned for me but good think I didn't get sausage patties like I normally do for breakfast.

Biden taps Obama, George Clooney, Julia Roberts and the Clintons for mega fundraisers (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/biden-taps-obama-george-clooney-julia-roberts-clintons-mega-fundraiser-rcna151183)

Quote from: Guybrush on May 09, 2024, 07:43 AMYou mentioned a parasite, so I ofc latched on to that bit.

The brain eating worm is probably the common pork tapeworm. It has a stage where it lives in the intestine, which is what people know about, but that stage produces eggs that hatch into another stage, a stage that makes a smaller worm that burrows into tissues and lives inside the cyst it creates there.

If people ingest those eggs, say from drinking water contaminated with faeces containing tapeworm eggs, those worms can end up in the brain - or in the eyes even.

It really is awful and so if you want something new to keep you up at night, just Google pork tapeworm brain.

When I read this I decided to give up eating and drinking entirely -  a resolve that lasted for about an hour.

I've prob mentioned this before, but pork is a risky meat to eat because pigs are genetically close to us: a bug that lives in pork can probably transfer comfortably to us. It's safer to eat beef, chicken or fish that are furthur removed from us genetically, so those bugs are less adept at finding a new home in us.

Nearly 100,000 people pack Wildwood beach for Donald Trump rally (https://abc7ny.com/post/donald-trump-wildwood-nj-2024-rally-new-jersey-tickets/14801435/)