Something Completely Different

So it appears that Pence is going to announce a run, and Chris Christie is also going to announce a run (or maybe a slow, measured walk in his case) for president.

So this should be fun, I'm hoping we get a bloodbath like we did in 2016 and Trump better not skip the debates.

It's time to be entertained, so let's talk and bullshit about it here.

I'll start by recommending this classic video that was done for Christie during the 2016 primaries before his visit to a New Hampshire diner:

Hope we see plenty of Donald.

Personally I don't get how people can find entertainment in watching a gaggle of wannabe dictators arguing over which one of them gets to abuse the human rights of women and minorities for the next half decade plus.

I don't have the mental fortitude to look at a picture of Trump or Desantis for more than like three seconds at a time, much less watch them on television.

Christie definitely needs to run but not for President.

He won't last long.

Quote from: Mrs. Waffles on Jun 02, 2023, 06:04 PMPersonally I don't get how people can find entertainment in watching a gaggle of wannabe dictators arguing over which one of them gets to abuse the human rights of women and minorities for the next half decade plus.

If Trump wins it'll definitely only be four years  8)

#VoteTrump

Quote from: jimmy jazz on Jun 02, 2023, 06:07 PMIf Trump wins it'll definitely only be four years  8)

#VoteTrump

I suppose every cloud has a silver lining. Except in this case the cloud is Trump's rancid McDonald's fart cloud and the silver lining is toxic mercury.

A classic moment from the 2016 primary:


Trump had to have been the first person to defend his dick size in a national debate - I remember watching this debate with a buddy of mine in college, and we just erupted in hysterics:

Quote from: Mrs. Waffles on Jun 02, 2023, 06:19 PMI suppose every cloud has a silver lining. Except in this case the cloud is Trump's rancid McDonald's fart cloud and the silver lining is toxic mercury.

#Grimace2024

This is so hilarious to me because I haven't seen anyone use the word "woke" in at least 5 years except for anti-LGBT republicans. They made up this "woke infestation" that's "coming for the kids" and their drooling fanbase bought it hook, line and sinker.

LGBT people are just trying to live our lives. These republicans think everything we do is this evil conspiratorial campaign by the (((woke leftist commie))) agenda but, like, I'm just some rando who barely leaves my house. I don't even think about republicans in my day to day life until the internet reminds me of how much I am hated for being alive.

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Jun 04, 2023, 03:02 PM

(https://i.postimg.cc/02L4bJkk/WWGtD.png) (https://postimages.org/)

Casey DeSantis sports 'Where Woke Goes to Die' jacket at Iowa GOP event (https://nypost.com/2023/06/03/casey-desantis-wears-where-woke-goes-to-die-jacket-at-iowa-gop-event/)

Here's something interesting I noticed.

Trump doesn't like the term 'woke': 'Half the people can't even define it' (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4031584-trump-iowa-dislikes-term-woke/)

QuoteFormer President Trump said Thursday that he doesn't like the term "woke," claiming that most people "can't even define it."

"I don't like the term 'woke' because I hear, 'Woke, woke, woke.' It's just a term they use, half the people can't even define it, they don't know what it is," Trump said at the Westside Conservative Breakfast in Urbandale, Iowa.

My takeaway from this is that Trump is already running for the general while DeSantis is trying to carve out a place further to the right of Trump in running for the primary.

The clown car of wacky Republican candidates is filling up and this will be a hilarious shit show to watch. Can't wait.  :laughing:

Rofl

Skeptics Question Whether Pence Has More to Offer Than Raw Sexual Magnetism (https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/skeptics-question-whether-pence-has-more-to-offer-than-raw-sexual-magnetism)

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Jun 06, 2023, 02:45 PMRofl

Skeptics Question Whether Pence Has More to Offer Than Raw Sexual Magnetism (https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/skeptics-question-whether-pence-has-more-to-offer-than-raw-sexual-magnetism)

 :laughing:  :laughing:

The republican party could use some help with women.

Chris Christie announces presidential run in New Hampshire (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/06/06/chris-christie-2024-trump-new-hampshire/70293771007/)

(https://media.tenor.com/TtJmeayQdhkAAAAC/pants-dance.gif)

"Chris, you looks good, won't you back that azz up"

Mike Pence launches his 2024 GOP presidential bid (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/mike-pence-launches-2024-gop-presidential-bid-rcna85844)

So now, I believe we have 12:

• Donald Trump
• Ron DeSantis
• Mike Pence
• Chris Christie
• Vivek Ramaswamy
• Doug Burgum
• Nikki Haley
• Asa Hutchinson
• Tim Scott
• Larry Elder
• Ryan Binkley
• Perry Johnson

Primary debates are gonna be a blast.

Quote from: Mrs. Waffles on Jun 02, 2023, 06:04 PMPersonally I don't get how people can find entertainment in watching a gaggle of wannabe dictators arguing over which one of them gets to abuse the human rights of women and minorities for the next half decade plus.

Watching Trump shove Ted Cruz's face into crow pie on the debate stage so badly that Cru was forced to applaud his own ass kicking was a little satisfying.

Quote from: TheBig3 on Jun 08, 2023, 03:10 AMWatching Trump shove Ted Cruz's face into crow pie on the debate stage so badly that Cru was forced to applaud his own ass kicking was a little satisfying.

Each to their own, I tend to not find much entertainment in watching people who want me dead and are hellbent on achieving that goal doing much of anything. It would be more entertaining if there wasn't so much at stake, you know? Like I'd laugh if I wasn't crying.

Quote from: TheBig3 on Jun 08, 2023, 03:10 AMWatching Trump shove Ted Cruz's face into crow pie on the debate stage so badly that Cru was forced to applaud his own ass kicking was a little satisfying.

Classic

Miami GOP Mayor Francis Suarez jumps into presidential race (https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/14/francis-suarez-president-mayor-miami-00102030)

I hope so bad the next president isnt* trump or biden

Quote from: Mindy on Jun 17, 2023, 05:30 PMI hope so bad the next president is trump or biden

do say more

Quote from: jadis on Jun 17, 2023, 07:23 PMdo say more

 :laughing:
Isn't*

typo  :embarassed:

See, now that's a position I can understand  :laughing:

If DeSatan wins I'm moving which I already kinda wanted to.

The sound at 1:33 is the sound of America

Quote from: tristan_geoff on Jun 18, 2023, 11:36 AMIf DeSatan wins I'm moving which I already kinda wanted to.

then why the fuck are you leveraging it based on the election lol

If you want to move then you should do so regardless of who wins.  Unless you were trying to go for some political refugee status.

Quote from: Jwb on Jul 05, 2023, 04:30 AMthen why the fuck are you leveraging it based on the election lol

If you want to move then you should do so regardless of who wins.  Unless you were trying to go for some political refugee status.

It's a common thing people say. Loads of regular people and celebrities were supposed to abandoned the country if Trump won and for the most part they stayed. A tiny few did follow through though.

My favorite Ben Carson moment from 2016:

QuoteFormer President Donald Trump, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, tech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, former Vice President Mike Pence, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie have each reached 1% or higher in at least two qualifying national polls and two qualifying state polls from separate states, which is a requirement set by the Republican National Committee.

So there are seven so far that will be at the first debate on August 23rd.

I'm pretty interested in the R primaries. The debates should be crazy and entertaining if nothing else. The general predicament of every R candidate now being forced to kiss Trump's nuts constantly or else lose his entire fan base and thus lose any chance of winning anything is sad yet amusing.

Seems like Vivek has gained a lot of steam in recent weeks. The first clip I saw of him I kinda liked him, but the more clips I saw over time, the more I realized he's just a different flavor of the same dogshit. I do feel like Trump would consider him as a running mate tho.

Quote from: Dirty on Jul 24, 2023, 07:05 AMI'm pretty interested in the R primaries. The debates should be crazy and entertaining if nothing else. The general predicament of every R candidate now being forced to kiss Trump's nuts constantly or else lose his entire fan base and thus lose any chance of winning anything is sad yet amusing.

Seems like Vivek has gained a lot of steam in recent weeks. The first clip I saw of him I kinda liked him, but the more clips I saw over time, the more I realized he's just a different flavor of the same dogshit. I do feel like Trump would consider him as a running mate tho.

Sup Dirty long time no see. How are the kids?

Yeah I'm in the debates for the circus of it all. Should be entertaining but the whole field sucks. You need to be able to challenge Trump and differeniate from him regardless of losing his base. Trump fans are so blinded by thier love for Trump that they even say they aren't Republican.

I saw one on Twitter say I'm a Trump supporter not a Republican.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jul 24, 2023, 03:27 PMSup Dirty long time no see. How are the kids?

Yeah I'm in the debates for the circus of it all. Should be entertaining but the whole field sucks. You need to be able to challenge Trump and differeniate from him regardless of losing his base. Trump fans are so blinded by thier love for Trump that they even say they aren't Republican.

I saw one on Twitter say I'm a Trump supporter not a Republican.

Hey DJ, only got one but she's great. Life is good and i hope you're doing well.

What a group of characters. I really don't see any way someone can win the nom without capturing the Trump base. It's a high wire act that I don't think anyone is gonna be able to solve. Now that they all know how Trump operates, im excited to see the mud slinging that these debates will bring. Lots of loud interruptions to show everyone who's most alpha lmao

Honestly Christie vs Trump is gearing up o be the only part of the republican debates I'm interested in so far. DeSantis is such a cowering pussy in the shadow of trump that it's shameful.

Quote from: Jwb on Jul 24, 2023, 10:42 PMHonestly Christie vs Trump is gearing up o be the only part of the republican debates I'm interested in so far. DeSantis is such a cowering pussy in the shadow of trump that it's shameful.

DeSantis is the Trump tribute band.

Regarding Christie, Trump will deliver a few well timed fat jokes, the crowd will laugh at him, and no one will remember what Christie said in response.

That's assuming Trump shows up for the debates of course. If he does, the person he should be worried about is Vivek. He's probably the only guy I'd think who could outmaneuver Trump in a debate.

I'd take Vivek over Biden in a heartbeat tbh. He's way smarter compared to the vast majority of clowns who have run for the office in the last couple of decades.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Jul 25, 2023, 09:17 PMI'd take Vivek over Biden in a heartbeat tbh. He's way smarter compared to the vast majority of clowns who have run for the office in the last couple of decades.

Too bad he's not smart enough to not be a transphobe.

I'd take Biden over someone who parrots the same anti-LGBT, anti-"woke" slander toward my people as all the other Republican bullies.

Quote from: Mrs. Waffles on Jul 25, 2023, 09:35 PMToo bad he's not smart enough to not be a transphobe.

I'd take Biden over someone who parrots the same anti-LGBT, anti-"woke" slander toward my people as all the other Republican bullies.

Well the good news for you is you can go out and vote based on whatever perception you have on any issue under the sun in 2024.  Biden has a good chance of getting re-elected if he wins the same kinds of numbers he did before.

That being said, my take is that there isn't very much of a macro-level difference in what either political party actually does as far as LGBTQ issues go, especially considering overall global political trends.  Despite what they say during Pride Month, Democrats here in the U.S. are out of step with their more liberal equivalents in the Nordic countries anyway, and China and the MIddle East and other places aren't going to change their stripes on the issue either because you can't change someone's view on what men or women are through legislation.  There's no governing body or political ideology on the planet that is going to convince conservative Muslims or Protestants or whoever else that X is Y and vice versa.

A more likely scenario based on the trends I've been observing is an eventual national divorce of sorts where laws related to LGBTQ-related issues of all kinds will simply be left up to the states (red and blue) and people will just have to move where they feel most at home culturally, socioeconomically, etc. since the federal government will be unable to make real progress in changing the minds of large portions of the voting electorate.  This scenario is already happening in the present, though we are in the very earliest stage of it.

I would just like to say that saying there's "not much difference" between the two American parties regarding what they will do for LGBT issues is an utterly ludicrous statement, with all due respect.

And it's all well and good to say "just move" like all the trans people who are unfortunate enough to live in red states have the means to just pack up and make a mass pilgrimage to blue states. And at least two front running republicans have said they seek to ban trans healthcare nationwide for all ages.. This is not an issue you can just handwave away like that, sorry.

My original point of posting here was to say that this is something we probably will have to agree to disagree on, as you yourself said. I don't want to debate anymore. It was a mistake to even click on this thread. I'll try to be better about that.

Quote from: Mrs. Waffles on Jul 25, 2023, 11:34 PMI understand. My fault honestly, I should know what to expect when I click on a thread about republicans. I'll excuse myself.

Fair enough. I don't know of any Republican candidates that aren't, at a bare minimum, extremely skeptical of the benefits of gender affirming care.  That DeSantis ad that got all the blowback, where he supposedly showcased how Trump was supposedly most "pro-LGBTQ" Republican in history is pretty whack.

Quote from: Mrs. Waffles on Jul 25, 2023, 11:34 PMI would just like to say that saying there's "not much difference" between the two American parties regarding what they will do for LGBT issues is an utterly ludicrous statement, with all due respect.

And it's all well and good to say "just move" like all the trans people who are unfortunate enough to live in red states have the means to just pack up and make a mass pilgrimage to blue states. And at least two front running republicans have said they seek to ban trans healthcare nationwide for all ages.. This is not an issue you can just handwave away like that, sorry.

My original point of posting here was to say that this is something we probably will have to agree to disagree on, as you yourself said. I don't want to debate anymore. It was a mistake to even click on this thread. I'll try to be better about that.

1. There really isn't any meaningful difference, because no matter what policy they say they want to push it isn't going to change minds on gender affirming care with significant chunks of the voting electorate across multiple demographics. This cuts both ways FYI - people who think gender affirming care is gospel aren't going to change their minds either. 

I've watched it play out and I study a wide range of trends both domestic and abroad (such as what has happened with the Norwegian Healthcare Investigation Board)  - I'm not convinced the Democratic Party is going to do anything meaningful about it in light of those prevailing international forces in government and healthcare that disagree with the APA.

2. First off, lawmakers and politicians say all kinds of things in both parties at all levels of government - they are in the business of over promising and under delivering no matter what audience they are catering to.  Lawmakers in Connecticut recently, for instance, pushed to essentially criminalize "hate speech" against MAPs - that hasn't worked out so well.  Also recently some MAGA Republican-types talked at one point about impeaching BIden over some nonsense  - also hasn't worked out so well.  Ask yourself what the actual likelihood of gender affirming care getting nationally banned is. 

I would tell anyone to aim to "move" elsewhere if they are unhappy where they are for any reason. Nobody can guarantee outcomes for you, so the best choice if you really hate where you are is to take steps to go somewhere else, even if it is just baby steps.  People have been doing it for thousands of years and they'll be doing it long after I'm dead.  Changing your environment is a million times more feasible than waiting around on lawmakers to do something that'll benefit you directly.

3. I don't disagree with your choices.  I'm just saying I'll vote for the third party or a "radical" who talks about how he'd dismantle the FBI and IRS and reduce the size of government.  DeSantis isn't that guy so I wouldn't vote for him. But Biden is most likely going to win re-election so it doesn't really matter what I think about it anyway.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Jul 26, 2023, 12:20 AM1. There really isn't any meaningful difference, because no matter what policy they say they want to push it isn't going to change minds on gender affirming care with significant chunks of the voting electorate across multiple demographics. This cuts both ways FYI - people who think gender affirming care is gospel aren't going to change their minds either. 

I've watched it play out and I study a wide range of trends both domestic and abroad (such as what has happened with the Norwegian Healthcare Investigation Board)  - I'm not convinced the Democratic Party is going to do anything meaningful about it in light of those prevailing international forces in government and healthcare that disagree with the APA.

2. First off, lawmakers and politicians say all kinds of things in both parties at all levels of government - they are in the business of over promising and under delivering no matter what audience they are catering to.  Lawmakers in Connecticut recently, for instance, pushed to essentially criminalize "hate speech" against MAPs - that hasn't worked out so well.  Also recently some MAGA Republican-types talked at one point about impeaching BIden over some nonsense  - also hasn't worked out so well.  Ask yourself what the actual likelihood of gender affirming care getting nationally banned is. 

I would tell anyone to aim to "move" elsewhere if they are unhappy where they are for any reason. Nobody can guarantee outcomes for you, so the best choice if you really hate where you are is to take steps to go somewhere else, even if it is just baby steps.  People have been doing it for thousands of years and they'll be doing it long after I'm dead.  Changing your environment is a million times more feasible than waiting around on lawmakers to do something that'll benefit you directly.

3. I don't disagree with your choices.  I'm just saying I'll vote for the third party or a "radical" who talks about how he'd dismantle the FBI and IRS and reduce the size of government.  DeSantis isn't that guy so I wouldn't vote for him. But Biden is most likely going to win re-election so it doesn't really matter what I think about it anyway.

1. This isn't about changing people's minds. This is a policy discussion. Do you even live in the states? If something concerning trans healthcare gets up to the Supreme Court with the 6-3 balance that is currently leaning conservative. This can actually become a reality and affect every trans person nationwide.  Just look at what they did recently with affirmative action and also over turning Roe V. Wade.

2. Don't take what politicians say lightly they can and do make changes to policies that are harmful to people's lives on the regular.

Also no way in hell is it easier to just pack up your whole life and move. You are speaking from a privileged point of view right now. Most people are struggling to get their basic needs meet and adding moving costs to that is not realistic.

3. Thanks for throwing away your vote by voting third party. I don't agree with corporate democrats on most things but I rather them be in office than the extreme opposition. I vote for progressive liberals locally, state wide and I would nationwide but there hasn't been a strong progressive candidate make it to the federal level yet. I mean the closest person was Bernie.

1.  The federal government isn't going to be able to force people via legislation who disagree with the APA and others about what a woman is, what a man is, etc, which is essentially the root of the culture war. Abortion has also been a contentious issue for decades in its own way, but it doesn't even begin to compare to what is going on currently.  The people who cross certain lines as far as "hate speech" goes tend to get arrested for one thing or another as it is.  If you push those boundaries further (for instance, trying an authoritarian measure that would go after people for not using the right pronouns), the outcome isn't going to be a positive one.  RE: see Bud Light and Target.

Also, I don't think your POV on the Supreme Court dynamics is correct. Look at what happened with Allen v. Milligan.   Roe v Wade is a completely separate point of discussion and I'm not going to get into that with you.


2. Sure they can, but nobody really knows what any of them will do or not do. Trump said he was going to put Hillary Clinton in jail - he didn't even bother trying once he was actually elected.  Political speculation is messy and imprecise, no? Speaking of the latter, look at Biden's own voting record over the years in relation to where he is right now in 2023.  Look at what he said about gay marriage not even 10 years ago. That's why it is pointless to get hung up about politics, because you never know who is telling the truth and who isn't or even if their views will change or not.  You can control what you do and where you go and very little else. 

If people were actually honest about voting for the absolute best possible candidate with all factors and capabilities considered, they'd pick a Vivek or an Andrew Yang or a Bernie Sanders over the Bidens and Trumps of the world.   And yet there are still tons of people who don't even cast a vote at all when they could do it easily.  It's a sad state of affairs.

3. If that's what you think, then perhaps things aren't going to go all that smoothly for Democrats heading into 2024. Is Biden lying about the vast amount of available jobs and opportunities out there? He stumps about it seemingly every week now.


I live in a red state so yeah, I'd be better off voting for a 3rd party.  Biden is either a shoe-in for the disillusioned or a DOA inevitability unless RFK Jr. pulls some kind of upset, so forgive me if I seem like a window shopper at this point.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jul 26, 2023, 02:31 PM1. This isn't about changing people's minds. This is a policy discussion. Do you even live in the states? If something concerning trans healthcare gets up to the Supreme Court with the 6-3 balance that is currently leaning conservative. This can actually become a reality and affect every trans person nationwide.  Just look at what they did recently with affirmative action and also over turning Roe V. Wade.

2. Don't take what politicians say lightly they can and do make changes to policies that are harmful to people's lives on the regular.

Also no way in hell is it easier to just pack up your whole life and move. You are speaking from a privileged point of view right now. Most people are struggling to get their basic needs meet and adding moving costs to that is not realistic.

3. Thanks for throwing away your vote by voting third party. I don't agree with corporate democrats on most things but I rather them be in office than the extreme opposition. I vote for progressive liberals locally, state wide and I would nationwide but there hasn't been a strong progressive candidate make it to the federal level yet. I mean the closest person was Bernie.

^ Excellent post, DJ, which, point by point, I completely agree with.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Jul 25, 2023, 11:52 PM"I'm just saying I'll vote for the third party or a "radical" who talks about how he'd dismantle the FBI and IRS and reduce the size of government."

^ My response to this is "Careful what you wish for, Nimbly". Do you really want an America that has no protection from Russian spies, terrorist organisations,  hackers of bank accounts, the Mafia, etc ? Also, an America without tax revenue would be what, exactly? An America without schools, hospitals or whatever those tax dollars are spent on ?

The U.S. federal government wastes somewhere north of $247 billion in taxpayer dollars every year.  The IRS focuses most of their time and energy auditing and going after the poorest Americans as opposed to the rich ones. Laws need to be fixed, but these organizations need to be demolished and reformed into leaner and less politicized entities that do their jobs more effectively for everyday Americans, no?

An America that doesn't waste most of my money would be a nice start before I worry about giving them more or less.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Jul 26, 2023, 04:06 PM1.  The federal government isn't going to be able to force people via legislation who disagree with the APA and others about what a woman is, what a man is, etc, which is essentially the root of the culture war. Abortion has also been a contentious issue for decades in its own way, but it doesn't even begin to compare to what is going on currently.  The people who cross certain lines as far as "hate speech" goes tend to get arrested for one thing or another as it is.  If you push those boundaries further(for instance, trying an authoritarian measure that would go after people for not using the right pronouns)

Like DJ said, this is not about forcing anyone to do or think anything. It's about protecting trans people, and GNC and LGBT people in general. Anti-drag laws and hormone bans are what we're talking about, not "forcing people to agree on what a woman/man is". The Supreme Court reversed decades old decisions, and recently ruled in favor of discrimination by businesses. Please do not try to tell a trans person what this is and isn't about. My friends in Missouri and Florida have had their hormone prescriptions abruptly stopped. And nobody gets arrested for transphobic hate speech, what planet are you living on?

You seem to assume the worst of us, like we're going to legally force you to recognize trans people's gender or face arrest. You can totally ignore trans people if you want, like everyone else did for the first 17 years of my transition and before, until the republican thugs started with the "groomer" rhetoric. This is about standing up for our rights to healthcare and equal and fair treatment by the the law. You don't have to do that, we can agree to disagree, but so much of what you're saying is not happening, and a lot of it is beside the point anyway. This is not personal, I do not see it as a reflection on your character, but please listen to trans voices here.

Here's one at-a-glance look at Federal spending, though it has percentages, not numbers like your $247 billion, Nimbly:-

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/2020_Total_US_Government_Spending_Breakdown.png/640px-2020_Total_US_Government_Spending_Breakdown.png)

Every country in the world, afaik, has eye-watering losses and wastage of public money. I used to read about the European Union's incompetent mismangagement of Euro-billions until it became too depressing, so America is not alone on that score.

Also, for a bit of international comparison, Britain under Mrs. Thatcher suffered a huge overhaul of local tax collection. Not mentioned much in her plans was the cost of making the change. I don't have a figure, but again it was a horrendous quantity of money, in order to change one system-with-flaws for a different system-with-flaws. I really wouldn't wish that on America.

To demolish the FBI and IRS would cause chaos and cost so much to rebuild from the ground up that the process itself would probably wipe out any benefits of a leaner system for decades to come. That's why it surprises me that some US politicians speak in these irresponsible soundbites and slogans: imo, they should know better than to encourage such impractical ideas.

I'm guessing this is where Nimbly got the figure of $247 billion:

The federal government wastes at least $247 billion in taxpayer money each year. Here's how (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/18/heres-how-the-federal-government-wastes-tax-money.html#:~:text=to%20watchdog%20groups.-,The%20U.S.%20government%20wastes%20billions%20of%20taxpayer%20dollars%20every%20year,to%20the%20Government%20Accountability%20Office.)

Interestingly, here's a snippit from the article (emphasis mine):

QuoteThe U.S. government wastes billions of taxpayer dollars every year.

Improper payments, which refer to payments that are made incorrectly by the government, cost the U.S. $247 billion in 2022, according to the Government Accountability Office. The U.S. government has lost almost $2.4 trillion in simple payment errors over the last two decades, by GAO estimates.

"The government has just lost, as if you dropped it on the sidewalk, trillions and trillions of dollars over the last few decades," said Richard Stern, a budget and spending expert from the Heritage Foundation. "That is money that was stolen from hardworking Americans to just simply get wasted."

How the hell does that happen? Beyond the obvious idea that the money is getting funneled/laundered to privately enrich individuals? If that's not the case here, I'm reminded of the comments Donald Rumsfeld made before 9/11 about the Pentagon not being able to account for where 2.3 trillion dollars went. Based on the article linked, it would seem like our government's accounting and auditing practices have not really improved since then.

Thanks for giving us the source of the $247 billion figure, SGR.

Quote from: SGR on Jul 26, 2023, 05:41 PMHow the hell does that happen? Beyond the obvious idea that the money is getting funneled/laundered to privately enrich individuals? If that's not the case here, I'm reminded of the comments Donald Rumsfeld made before 9/11 about the Pentagon not being able to account for where 2.3 trillion dollars went. Based on the article linked, it would seem like our government's accounting and auditing practices have not really improved since then.

Yep, I share your outrage. At high levels of government there's a hard-to-believe mismanagement of funds going on, and seemingly no-one is held accountable.

Remember the Covid bail-out packages? In both Britain and the US vast quantities of that money were squandered on phoney/unworthy candidates. At first it made me think that with these large-scale government schemes it's just impossible to track where each dollar is going: that financial inefficiency is part of what happens when the turnover, or the scheme itself, is so large. But then I thought: in the world of commerce, this kind of stuff is buttoned up tight. I never hear of mega-companies like Coca-Cola or Amazon saying to their share-holders, "oops! $247 billion has gone missing!" So yeah, these government agencies should have their feet held to the fire, imo, and be called to account for the public money that passes through their hands. 

That kind of information would numb even the warmest hearted democracy-supporting taxpayer if they were aware of the full extent of it.  Ya'll can hate on me if you want, but I keep my expectations of government somewhere between the bottom of the Mariana Trench and my basement level floor.  Who needs conspiracy theories or culture wars when the level of incompetence is so bad that you can't even fully wrap your mind around it.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jul 26, 2023, 11:47 PMThanks for giving us the source of the $247 billion figure, SGR.

Yep, I share your outrage. At high levels of government there's a hard-to-believe mismanagement of funds going on, and seemingly no-one is held accountable.

Remember the Covid bail-out packages? In both Britain and the US vast quantities of that money were squandered on phoney/unworthy candidates. At first it made me think that with these large-scale government schemes it's just impossible to track where each dollar is going: that financial inefficiency is part of what happens when the turnover, or the scheme itself, is so large. But then I thought: in the world of commerce, this kind of stuff is buttoned up tight. I never hear of mega-companies like Coca-Cola or Amazon saying to their share-holders, "oops! $247 billion has gone missing!" So yeah, these government agencies should have their feet held to the fire, imo, and be called to account for the public money that passes through their hands. 

Most of the missing money from government agencies comes from them overpricing items and of course pocketing it to certain individuals but as far as covid funds go. Unworthy individuals are currently in the process of being tracked down they are arresting them left and right. All those people that created fake LLCs to get PPP loan money are getting tracked down.

I hate when right wingers are so whiney about their tax dollars and how it's spent. You have NEVER been able to give input about how your tax money is spent. You just have to pay them. If you don't want to pay taxes move to a country that doesn't make you pay taxes to be a contributing member of society. Good luck with that by the way. This isn't directed at you Lisna I just mean in general.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Jul 26, 2023, 12:20 AMI would tell anyone to aim to "move" elsewhere if they are unhappy where they are for any reason. Nobody can guarantee outcomes for you, so the best choice if you really hate where you are is to take steps to go somewhere else, even if it is just baby steps.  People have been doing it for thousands of years and they'll be doing it long after I'm dead.  Changing your environment is a million times more feasible than waiting around on lawmakers to do something that'll benefit you directly.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jul 26, 2023, 02:31 PM2. Don't take what politicians say lightly they can and do make changes to policies that are harmful to people's lives on the regular.

Also no way in hell is it easier to just pack up your whole life and move. You are speaking from a privileged point of view right now. Most people are struggling to get their basic needs meet and adding moving costs to that is not realistic.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jul 27, 2023, 01:52 AMMost of the missing money from government agencies comes from them overpricing items and of course pocketing it to certain individuals but as far as covid funds go. Unworthy individuals are currently in the process of being tracked down they are arresting them left and right. All those people that created fake LLCs to get PPP loan money are getting tracked down.

I hate when right wingers are so whiney about their tax dollars and how it's spent. You have NEVER been able to give input about how your tax money is spent. You just have to pay them. If you don't want to pay taxes move to a country that doesn't make you pay taxes to be a contributing member of society. Good luck with that by the way. This isn't directed at you Lisna I just mean in general.

And so we've come full circle.

Quote from: SGR on Jul 27, 2023, 03:22 AMAnd so we've come full circle.

That's the point of telling them to "just move" it's the same lame argument that they like to use so I throw it back in their face it was intentional. I have done it before.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jul 27, 2023, 03:37 AMThat's the point of telling them to "just move" it's the same lame argument that they like to use so I throw it back in their face it was intentional. I have done it before.

People have always "just moved" for all kinds of reasons.  That's how you got America in the first place.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Jul 27, 2023, 04:45 AMPeople have always "just moved" for all kinds of reasons.  That's how you got America in the first place.

Do you know what it takes to leave your whole life behind and "just move" to another country?

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jul 27, 2023, 06:08 AMDo you know what it takes to leave your whole life behind and "just move" to another country?

Sure, and it isn't relevant to the fact that people still do it anyway and have done so repeatedly. Don't take the conveniences of the modern world for granted.  Try putting yourself in the shoes of people in eras where it took months or even years to reach a destination and where your life expectancy was likely 35 or younger. Compared to them, we might as well be gods on flying chariots.  You can apply for work weeks or even months ahead of time in a place you don't even know and coordinate any number of things at essentially lightspeed.   

People who think "just move" is a bad argument haven't really thought about it enough or are looking for some kind of convenience that doesn't actually exist in the present.  I've moved across states and between two separate continents and I never loved the process.  Feeling unhappy cause somebody told you something you didn't want to hear or because you get preoccupied with 1st world problems isn't the same thing as an argument being bad.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Jul 27, 2023, 06:37 AMSure, and it isn't relevant to the fact that people still do it anyway and have done so repeatedly. Don't take the conveniences of the modern world for granted.  Try putting yourself in the shoes of people in eras where it took months or even years to reach a destination and where your life expectancy was likely 35 or younger. Compared to them, we might as well be gods on flying chariots.  You can apply for work weeks or even months ahead of time in a place you don't even know and coordinate any number of things at essentially lightspeed. 

People who think "just move" is a bad argument haven't really thought about it enough or are looking for some kind of convenience that doesn't actually exist in the present.  I've moved across states and between two separate continents and I never loved the process.  Feeling unhappy cause somebody told you something you didn't want to hear or because you get preoccupied with 1st world problems isn't the same thing as an argument being bad.

What was the other one?

Quote from: jadis on Jul 27, 2023, 08:20 AMWhat was the other one?

Asia I'm guessing. His wife is Indian.

8)

^ ... then Nimbly has a more atypical history than I ever imagined ! Good for you, Nimbly.

... though on the issue of moving, I don't entirely support your "me and other people have done it, so can you" attitude. That may be theoretically true, but it's still a challenge that some people feel they can't risk. For example, "you can apply for work weeks, even months ahead of time" is true in some cases, I'm sure, but applies mainly to people who have good internet access and who are looking for employment that is grand enough to be advertised online. If you aim to get a waiter's job, that avenue may not work for you. Plus, of course, there's a big difference between applying for a job and getting a job.
_______________________________________________

Great news that those fake LLCs are getting tracked down, DJ. 

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jul 27, 2023, 01:52 AMI hate when right wingers are so whiney about their tax dollars and how it's spent. You have NEVER been able to give input about how your tax money is spent. You just have to pay them. If you don't want to pay taxes move to a country that doesn't make you pay taxes to be a contributing member of society. Good luck with that by the way. This isn't directed at you Lisna I just mean in general.

I think you might've misunderstood what I was saying, DJ. I was only suggesting that government agencies could learn from mega-companies about how to manage huge amounts of money more efficiently, without the $247 billion in unaccounted leakage that Nimbly mentioned. I'm not a right winger who doesn't want to pay taxes - though I'm prepared to accept the charge of being whiney. 

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jul 27, 2023, 06:18 PMI think you might've misunderstood what I was saying, DJ. I was only suggesting that government agencies could learn from mega-companies about how to manage huge amounts of money more efficiently, without the $247 billion in unaccounted leakage that Nimbly mentioned. I'm not a right winger who doesn't want to pay taxes - though I'm prepared to accept the charge of being whiney. 

Speaking of mega companies they got so much of that pandemic funding too especially airlines and they don't have to pay back a cent.

Another gripe I have against right wingers is the hypocritical nature of railing against safety net programs for the average citizen but when companies get welfare from the federal government not a single peep from their side.

I do agree though that the government doesn't need to be mismanaging money but I'm more worried about the government's effect on certain policies than I am concerned about the national debt for instance.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jul 27, 2023, 11:52 PMAnother gripe I have against right wingers is the hypocritical nature of railing against safety net programs for the average citizen but when companies get welfare from the federal government not a single peep from their side.

My biggest gripe against right wingers is literally everything about them.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jul 27, 2023, 06:18 PM^ ... then Nimbly has a more atypical history than I ever imagined ! Good for you, Nimbly.

... though on the issue of moving, I don't entirely support your "me and other people have done it, so can you" attitude. That may be theoretically true, but it's still a challenge that some people feel they can't risk. For example, "you can apply for work weeks, even months ahead of time" is true in some cases, I'm sure, but applies mainly to people who have good internet access and who are looking for employment that is grand enough to be advertised online. If you aim to get a waiter's job, that avenue may not work for you. Plus, of course, there's a big difference between applying for a job and getting a job.
_______________________________________________

Great news that those fake LLCs are getting tracked down, DJ. 

I think you might've misunderstood what I was saying, DJ. I was only suggesting that government agencies could learn from mega-companies about how to manage huge amounts of money more efficiently, without the $247 billion in unaccounted leakage that Nimbly mentioned. I'm not a right winger who doesn't want to pay taxes - though I'm prepared to accept the charge of being whiney. 

the "just move" argument isn't dumb cause people can't move.  It's dumb because we don't want to have an a la carte approach to human rights.  Like we could have told black people to just move out of the south instead of ending jim crow.   But we just don't want to allow for these pockets of persecution to exist in the first place.

So if someone sees abortion as a right or gender affirming care as a right, obviously they aren't going to be ok with denying people said rights on a state by state basis based on whatever the local culture and politics are.  Like it makes 0 sense for abortion to be murder in Florida but just a part of healthcare in Ny. It's either murder or its not.  Gender affirming care is either harming children or helping children or its not.  There's no coherence to pretending like we can continue to live together in one nation under a sort of amicable divorce where we still share the house but we're doing our own thing.  That's not how nation states work. If theres a divorce in this country, it's going to be a messy one. In the meantime, people will just keep flirting with the idea and bifurcating into their selective echo chambers, which will only breed more internal instability. It's a very precarious situation that we are currently in. 

Quote from: Jwb on Jul 30, 2023, 09:07 PMLike it makes 0 sense for abortion to be murder in Florida but just a part of healthcare in Ny. It's either murder or its not.  Gender affirming care is either harming children or helping children or its not.  There's no coherence to pretending like we can continue to live together in one nation under a sort of amicable divorce where we still share the house but we're doing our own thing.  That's not how nation states work. If theres a divorce in this country, it's going to be a messy one. In the meantime, people will just keep flirting with the idea and bifurcating into their selective echo chambers, which will only breed more internal instability. It's a very precarious situation that we are currently in. 

I get where you're coming from, but defining some of these things concretely is difficult.

Conservatives and Democrats don't even agree with their own party about abortion. Some conservatives might see it as murder no matter how quickly an abortion is performed after conception. Others might see it as murder when the fetus begins to have a conscious experience. And to complicate things further, when is it 'murder' and when is it 'terminating a pregnancy'? If we frame abortion as murder (which I don't think the majority of the country does), then wouldn't it almost always be immoral to do (save for maybe if the pregnancy endangered the life of the mother), even in cases of rape?

I don't think the gender affirming care is that simple either, is it? I mean, couldn't it be more grey than black and white? I'm by no means an expert on gender affirming care, especially in regards to children but e.g. it helps some children in the long run and ends up harming others in the long run? Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think we have a surefire way to know for certain whether gender affirming care will end up being a net positive or a net negative in the long run for a child at this moment in time, but we'll hopefully get there in the future.

I completely agree about the precarious situation we're in as a country though. I think (or at least hope) that Civil War and national divorce is a step too far, and that cooler heads would prevent that from ever happening, but it really is like we're living in different realities from each other. We're all in the same theater, but we're watching completely different movies. No clue how you rectify that, but the media (on both sides of the political aisle) share a large responsibility for where we are.

I think you're somewhat missing my point,  to be honest.  I'm not saying either of those issues are black and white.  I'm saying we're talking about basic questions of rights so expecting people to just move to the state that corresponds with their stance on the culture war is a ridiculous solution.

There are things that we can have on a state by state basis where people can pick and choose and vote with their feet, etc. Taxes would be a good example.  But things like abortion,  gay rights, trans rights etc.  That's not at all a good solution. We can have cultural differences and disagreements and still live in the same nation up to a point.  But the civil war proved that if you allow that difference to become profound enough then there does come a breaking point.

That doesn't mean all states have necessarily have the same exact abortion laws or whatever. But at a certain point if the differences are great enough there is a built in incoherence to the policy. Like theoretically a nation that in one state is letting people abort at will up until birth and another state says taking plan b is murder.  I think those two states existing under the same regime would be a sign that the contradictions have actually reached the level where we are left pondering the prospect of civil war.

Quote from: SGR on Jul 30, 2023, 10:02 PMI don't think the gender affirming care is that simple either, is it? I mean, couldn't it be more grey than black and white? I'm by no means an expert on gender affirming care, especially in regards to children but e.g. it helps some children in the long run and ends up harming others in the long run? Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think we have a surefire way to know for certain whether gender affirming care will end up being a net positive or a net negative in the long run for a child at this moment in time, but we'll hopefully get there in the future.
 

One thing is for certain we shouldn't decide what parents do for their own children. The government shouldn't have the last say when it comes to a parent's right to make decisions for their own children.

Quote from: Jwb on Jul 30, 2023, 09:07 PMthe "just move" argument isn't dumb cause people can't move.  It's dumb because we don't want to have an a la carte approach to human rights.  Like we could have told black people to just move out of the south instead of ending jim crow.   But we just don't want to allow for these pockets of persecution to exist in the first place.

And we never will my friend, which is precisely why it isn't a dumb argument. You are missing the forest for the trees.  Our concept of human rights is a pretty new thing in the grand scheme of things.  But people have always found a way to go where they wanted to go, especially if they don't like where they are.  The world is a big place and that's both a good thing and a bad thing depending on how you look at it.

Would any human beings exist on the North American or Eurasian continents if people hadn't travelled their asses off looking for resources, better weather, etc. tens of thousands of years ago? Probably not.

I'm all for making change - I just don't see how it would be less of a hassle to go to a river where the fish are already swimming around instead of trying to convince everyone around you to carve that river out under your feet from scratch. 

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Aug 01, 2023, 05:20 AMI'm all for making change - I just don't see how it would be less of a hassle to go to a river where the fish are already swimming around instead of trying to convince everyone around you to carve that river out under your feet from scratch. 

This is where you and jwb will have to agree to disagree.

I get jwb's point. Leaving a situation and going to path of least resistance may work for you but it pretty much spits in the face of everyone that you leave begind that has to deal with the shit you are running away from. I honestly don't think you are all for change because to make change you have to face adversary head on not run away from it.

The road/path less traveled and all that jazz.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Aug 01, 2023, 06:27 AMThis is where you and jwb will have to agree to disagree.

I get jwb's point. Leaving a situation and going to path of least resistance may work for you but it pretty much spits in the face of everyone that you leave begind that has to deal with the shit you are running away from. I honestly don't think you are all for change because to make change you have to face adversary head on not run away from it.

The road/path less traveled and all that jazz.

He's entitled to his opinion.  I don't have magical thinking in regards to change. And you'd have to be able define what exactly it is you want to change and what the feasibility of it is. 

If someone is thinking they can move to San Francisco and turn it into the bastion of conservative Christendom or move to Hamtramck, Michigan and turn it less Muslim or less conservative, they are probably wasting their time.  Funnily enough though, real change actually does tend to happen when enough people "just move" to a new place and then vote, which is how Florida flipped red.  It's a numbers game and people should do their homework on it.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Aug 01, 2023, 05:13 PMIt's a numbers game and people should do their homework on it.

Voting isnt the only way to fight and it's not even the best way. I'm on the ground as a grassroots organizer. I know first hand. I don't need to do any research.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Aug 01, 2023, 05:20 AMAnd we never will my friend, which is precisely why it isn't a dumb argument. You are missing the forest for the trees.  Our concept of human rights is a pretty new thing in the grand scheme of things.  But people have always found a way to go where they wanted to go, especially if they don't like where they are.  The world is a big place and that's both a good thing and a bad thing depending on how you look at it.

Would any human beings exist on the North American or Eurasian continents if people hadn't travelled their asses off looking for resources, better weather, etc. tens of thousands of years ago? Probably not.

I'm all for making change - I just don't see how it would be less of a hassle to go to a river where the fish are already swimming around instead of trying to convince everyone around you to carve that river out under your feet from scratch. 

what forest am i missing? Your sole point seems to be that people can move.  It's not so much a bad argument as it is not really an argument at all.  It seems like you think that the qanon people can have one corner of the country and the lgbt have another and we can just self segregate our way to peace. I think that is a non-solution, for a number of reasons.

Think about the lgbt question. Gay people are just going to keep popping up in conservative areas and having to move to blue areas of they wanted to be accepted.  It's not like they only get born in places that are accepting.  So we're putting the perpetual onus on them to flee conservative areas rather than the cultural imposition of expecting them to be more accepting. 

And you can say such impositions don't work or that people's minds won't be changed, but again, we did exactly that in order to end jim crow. And people's mind set at the time certainly didn't seem poised to change any time soon either.  But eventually that is what happened, through a combination of state force and social pressure.

We've seen similar though not quite as drastic developments over the last few decades with gay rights and gay marriage in particular.  That also wasn't done state by state.  It was pushed down through the Supreme court. If we had waited for it in a state by state basis, it would still be illegal in many states.

The conservatives have no less of a desire to push their agenda federally either though. The states rights talking point gets trotted out selectively to fight federal policies they specifically don't like.  It won't stop them from lets say having a federal abortion ban, if they had the opportunity to make that happen. 

Since the politics of the country are radicalizing in both directions, our ability to coexist peacefully is actually diminished.  And if the only option is self segregation along political lines then that would seem to me to be a likely prelude to actual civil conflict.


People do move and moving is useful.  But generally they do so for economic opportunities and resources, like the examples you cited.  The prospect of choosing where you want to live based on these ideological culture wars seems very different.  It also abandons any prospect of changing a place like Mississippi if everyone who has any inclination for change moves out of the state.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Aug 01, 2023, 05:13 PMHe's entitled to his opinion.  I don't have magical thinking in regards to change. And you'd have to be able define what exactly it is you want to change and what the feasibility of it is. 

If someone is thinking they can move to San Francisco and turn it into the bastion of conservative Christendom or move to Hamtramck, Michigan and turn it less Muslim or less conservative, they are probably wasting their time.  Funnily enough though, real change actually does tend to happen when enough people "just move" to a new place and then vote, which is how Florida flipped red.  It's a numbers game and people should do their homework on it.

no you likely can't change the demos in a big city like san fran to be a Christian conservative city, but that's not what we're debating.

If san fran  or california persecuted local Christians or denied them certain rights i think that would be unacceptable and we should expect them to stop doing so, rather than expect the Christians to move to where they might have more rights.

Jwb, telling people that there's no differences between the races versus telling people that there's no biological distinction or meaning to men vs women and that people can be whatever they feel they are at any given moment (see: Neil DeGrasse Tyson's recent comments) is a VERY different policy sell, one that I don't think is ultimately going to go over well with people across a wide variety of demographics.

There's also a lot of back-pedaling going on in other places besides the U.S. in regards to the long-term viability of some kinds of gender affirming care, nations that are supposedly way ahead of us on these issues.  We are hearing very different messages from health authorities in Sweden and Norway and the U.K. versus the APA and left-leaning organizations over here. Why do you think that is?

I'd wager a guess that we are more likely to see science progress to the point where gender dysphoria can actually be reversed or treated without affirmation than we are to see some kind of unilateral political acceptance of that kind of goalpost moving in society outside of blue states/cities.  Will likely cost less money compared to the years of treatments and doctor appointments and counseling. How long will that be? That's the million dollar question.

You are correct that people will still be born in conservative places that will get lumped under the LGBTQ spectrum somewhere, but you aren't looking at the endgame of where things will actually go.  This is a medical thing in the eyes of politicians and others, not an immutable characteristic like race.  We're within 10 years of eliminating aging and yet some think nobody will crack the code on aligning a person to their biological sex? It's not a matter of "if"...but "when".

The entire reason gender affirming care even exists is because dysphoria is acknowledged as a less-than-ideal state of existence that requires varying degrees of medical intervention.  But despite all the talk about how good affirmation is, today's solutions are still just another form of being put on pills for the rest of your life.  We're still in the stone age for all intents and purposes.  Our medical capabilities in treating cancers, for example, is a million lightyears ahead of the science around gender affirming care and we still don't produce good outcomes most of the time.

But as polarizing as something like that is, it'll just lead (at worst) to a begrudging national divorce where blue states will be a lot more permissive in regards to their John Money-inspired curriculums versus red states where they will continue to be extremely skeptical about those subjects, even at the expense of people's individual feelings.

But comparing something that even liberal Europe and liberal America can't agree on...I'd be interested in seeing what the U.S. will ultimately do at the federal level once all the chips are down.  I don't see a timeline where the government is going to convince families with kids that kinky public drag shows are some kind of necessity of life or that Pride parades where dudettes walk around fully naked and erect is the next great moral battlefield of our time, but you just never know how things will end up.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Aug 08, 2023, 11:55 PMTelling people that there's no differences between the races and telling people that there's no biological distinction or meaning to men vs women and that people can be whatever they feel they are at any given moment (see: Neil DeGrasse Tyson's recent comments) is a very different sell, one that I don't think is ultimately going to go over well with people across a wide variety of demographics.  There's also a lot of back-pedelling going on in other places besides the U.S. in regards to the long-term viability of some kinds of gender affirming care.  We are hearing very different messages from health authorities in Sweden and Norway and the U.K. versus the APA and left-leaning organizations over here.

You are more likely to see science progress to the point where gender dysphoria can actually be reversed or treated without affirmation than you are to see some kind of unilateral acceptance of that kind of goalpost moving in society outside of blue states/cities.  Probably cost less money too compared to the years of treatments and doctor appointments and counseling. 

How long will that be? That's the million dollar question. You are correct that people will still be born in conservative places that will get lumped under the LGBTQ spectrum somewhere, but you aren't looking at the endgame of where things will actually go.  This is a medical thing, not an immutable characteristic like race. 

The entire reason gender affirming care even exists is because dysphoria is acknowledged as a less-than-ideal state of existence that requires medical intervention.  But despite all the talk about how good affirmation is, today's solutions are still just another form of being put on pills for the rest of your life.  We're still in the stone age for all intents and purposes.  Our medical capabilities in treating cancers, for example, is a million lightyears ahead of the science around gender affirming care and we still don't produce good outcomes most of the time.

But as polarizing as something like that is, it'll just lead (at worst) a quiet national divorce where blue states will be a lot more permissive in regards to their John Money-inspired curriculums versus red states where they will continue to be extremely skeptical about those subjects, even at the expense of people's individual feelings.

But comparing something that even liberal Europe and liberal America can't agree on...I'd be interested in seeing what the U.S. will ultimately do at the federal level once all the chips are down.  I don't see a timeline where the government is going to convince families with kids that kinky public drag shows are some kind of necessity of life or that Pride parades where dudettes walk around fully naked and erect is the next great moral battlefield of our time, but you just never know how things will end up.

Every time I think I've seen it all with your bad faith transphobic takes, you post something even more bad faith and transphobic.

How about the government just leaves trans people the fuck alone.

Quote from: Mrs. Waffles on Aug 09, 2023, 12:42 AMEvery time I think I've seen it all with your bad faith transphobic takes, you post something even more bad faith and transphobic.

How about the government just leaves trans people the fuck alone.

Tell them to leave everyone alone while your at it.  That'd be nice.

Unfortunately for you and me, we don't live in the world of Altered Carbon as far as biotech goes, so I'm sticking with my predictions on the state of play unless I see some kind of seismic shift in the status quo.

Trump up to his old 'Don't call Ted Cruz a pussy' tricks

(https://thegrounds.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/kevtrump.jpg)

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Aug 09, 2023, 12:49 AMTell them to leave everyone alone while your at it.  That'd be nice.

That would be nice but if the right wing could get a federal abortion ban they would love the government to do it. The right wing is all for small government involvement unless it applies to something they disagree with across the board them they want all the government involvement they can get.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Aug 09, 2023, 03:18 AMThat would be nice but if the right wing could get a federal abortion ban they would love the government to do it. The right wing is all for small government involvement unless it applies to something they disagree with across the board them they want all the government involvement they can get.

Vote Green 2024

(https://www.politico.com/dims4/default/2a256d7/2147483647/legacy_thumbnail/1200x799%3E/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Fc1%2Fde%2Fd17ad20d46ac886010bdbf3130f7%2Fthesitdown-cornel-west-mmdd.jpg)

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Aug 09, 2023, 03:47 AMVote Green 2024

(https://www.politico.com/dims4/default/2a256d7/2147483647/legacy_thumbnail/1200x799%3E/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Fc1%2Fde%2Fd17ad20d46ac886010bdbf3130f7%2Fthesitdown-cornel-west-mmdd.jpg)

I would but Jill Stein is heavily involved in his campaign and I can't back him because of it. I also refuse to split the vote. That's how Trump will end up in office if people get into semantics about wanting to throw away their votes to a third party that has zero chances of winning.

He's running the table

I just saw a TV ad from Perry Johnson for President.

He looks like a creepy snake oil salesman.

Sorry for the consistently belated replies. I been putting in a lot of hours.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Aug 08, 2023, 11:55 PMJwb, telling people that there's no differences between the races versus telling people that there's no biological distinction or meaning to men vs women and that people can be whatever they feel they are at any given moment (see: Neil DeGrasse Tyson's recent comments) is a VERY different policy sell, one that I don't think is ultimately going to go over well with people across a wide variety of demographics.

you can say that, but people back then still believed in racial segregation with just as much passion and urgency as is being expressed over trans issues today. if anything, they believed in their racial heirarchy even more deeply and defended it even more bitterly than their modern contemporaries with the trans  issues. 


 So the idea that its a bigger leap to get people today  to change their minds on the trans issues vs getting people in the 1950s south to change their minds on jim crow just isn't nearly as clear cut as you are presenting it.  You can't deny that people can change their minds drastically on these cultural issues over time.

You might say there's more of a fact of the matter with things like gender affirming care where a more scientific metric will be applied, and i don't even disagree with that. Because it's in the realm of science and healthcare, over time i do expect a basic scientific consensus to emerge. 

That's a big part of why i don't see the federalist solution as really appealing or stable long term. That depends strictly on the culture and opinions of the local constituency, not on actual science. 

So if you sincerely believe it's a practice that is leading to long term harm in children, it's pretty bizarre that your ideal compromise is to let the blue states continue to do so as long as their constituency still agrees with the policy.  Or apply the same to abortion.  A fetus is a fetus.  If you believe people are murdering babies, you really want to let them do so in the states where it's still a popular policy? There's an ideological incoherence on display in that type of federalism.

QuoteThere's also a lot of back-pedaling going on in other places besides the U.S. in regards to the long-term viability of some kinds of gender affirming care, nations that are supposedly way ahead of us on these issues.  We are hearing very different messages from health authorities in Sweden and Norway and the U.K. versus the APA and left-leaning organizations over here. Why do you think that is?

I don't know that much about it tbh but things have changed pretty radically over last few decades. so it wouldn't surprise me if they get things wrong and revise them amidst so much drastic change.  I don't know why you're coming at me like I'm the fuckin spokesman for puberty blockers.

QuoteI'd wager a guess that we are more likely to see science progress to the point where gender dysphoria can actually be reversed or treated without affirmation than we are to see some kind of unilateral political acceptance of that kind of goalpost moving in society outside of blue states/cities.  Will likely cost less money compared to the years of treatments and doctor appointments and counseling. How long will that be? That's the million dollar question.


You are correct that people will still be born in conservative places that will get lumped under the LGBTQ spectrum somewhere, but you aren't looking at the endgame of where things will actually go.  This is a medical thing in the eyes of politicians and others, not an immutable characteristic like race.  We're within 10 years of eliminating aging and yet some think nobody will crack the code on aligning a person to their biological sex? It's not a matter of "if"...but "when".

this is a fascinating claim tbh. can you please expand on this?

QuoteThe entire reason gender affirming care even exists is because dysphoria is acknowledged as a less-than-ideal state of existence that requires varying degrees of medical intervention.  But despite all the talk about how good affirmation is, today's solutions are still just another form of being put on pills for the rest of your life.  We're still in the stone age for all intents and purposes.  Our medical capabilities in treating cancers, for example, is a million lightyears ahead of the science around gender affirming care and we still don't produce good outcomes most of the time.

But as polarizing as something like that is, it'll just lead (at worst) to a begrudging national divorce where blue states will be a lot more permissive in regards to their John Money-inspired curriculums versus red states where they will continue to be extremely skeptical about those subjects, even at the expense of people's individual feelings.

But comparing something that even liberal Europe and liberal America can't agree on...I'd be interested in seeing what the U.S. will ultimately do at the federal level once all the chips are down.  I don't see a timeline where the government is going to convince families with kids that kinky public drag shows are some kind of necessity of life or that Pride parades where dudettes walk around fully naked and erect is the next great moral battlefield of our time, but you just never know how things will end up.

i would just point out that you started off arguing "just move," and now that I've destroyed that piece of insight you want to pivot to a straight up trans debate featuring kids at drag shows. what do you think, i want mandatory pride events at schools in conservative districts? You even know who you're talking to rn?

You told me to think about the LGBT question so I was merely expanding upon that for you.  You didn't "destroy" anything.  I already made my point about the viability of moving and I still say it is the best option considering people have done some version of it for the entirety of human history.  The convenience or lack thereof of such a process isn't really all that relevant in the face of that truth.

It is always going to be a way more viable option to move somewhere else than expecting massive status quo shifts in the socioeconomics or politics of the region you live in. Your only here on this planet for a relatively short period of time anyway - is there really anyone out there who wants to spend all their time fighting uphill battles in a place they really don't want to be in? Aspiration and inspiration are very different things.

Trans issues and race issues strike me a very different things in the context of greater society.  Based on the sheer amount of conflict those discussions cause in regards to people's personal and/or spiritual beliefs, I think its more like abortion in that it will always be something with no middle ground.  I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that you will have way better luck trying to make a Klansman change his or her views on African-Americans than you would trying to get your typical conservative Muslim or someone from Liberia to accept that gender is fluid. 

My observations are not "incoherent".  I can tell blue states all day to go look at Sweden or tell the red states to chill out and they will never compromise because both sides believe that they are morally correct, not just ideologically correct.  Can the federal government figure it out? That's a tough one.

That stuff about "reversing gender dysphoria" is so horrifying to me as a prospect and I certainly hope it never comes to be. You do realize you're basically describing conversion therapy, right? Imagine hating trans identity so much that you want to rewire someone's mind to get rid of it.

In my experience, my dysphoria was so inextricably tied to my personality and my sense of self. Getting rid of my feeling that I was a girl wouldn't make me feel any more comfortable in male spaces and male identity, and if it did, then that just feels like creepy mind control shit.

I just want to know what is so terrible about someone identifying as a different gender that it would warrant that as a "solution".

Quote from: Mrs. Waffles on Aug 14, 2023, 07:23 AMI just want to know what is so terrible about someone identifying as a different gender that it would warrant that as a "solution".

It's not really a solution it's just something to appease what they are uncomfortable with, which is being around different people.

I have this asshole acquaintance that thinks it's funny to constantly post memes about how drag queens/trans people are mentally ill for wanting to read to children. 

Quote from: Mrs. Waffles on Aug 14, 2023, 07:23 AMThat stuff about "reversing gender dysphoria" is so horrifying to me as a prospect and I certainly hope it never comes to be. You do realize you're basically describing conversion therapy, right? Imagine hating trans identity so much that you want to rewire someone's mind to get rid of it.

In my experience, my dysphoria was so inextricably tied to my personality and my sense of self. Getting rid of my feeling that I was a girl wouldn't make me feel any more comfortable in male spaces and male identity, and if it did, then that just feels like creepy mind control shit.

I just want to know what is so terrible about someone identifying as a different gender that it would warrant that as a "solution".

I don't think its a terrible thing.  As someone who dealt with a difficult condition myself growing up, I get it.  By the same token, I get why they'd see it as terrible.  But again, I'm not religious and I don't care as much about the distinctions between men and women or whether it is "right" or "wrong" to be a certain way.

As far as my medical talk goes..what I'm describing is a form of genetic therapy they would do before someone gets to puberty.  There isn't a single parent on the planet that would willingly have their kid be subjected to years of medication and other things if they know they can just align their sex and gender with a treatment or two early on. "Conversion therapy" is pseudo science.  And like I said, if you really think science won't go there, you just aren't paying attention.  Look at what they can already do with CRISPR.

We already have scientists that are trying to do things like womb transplants, but it doesn't take much to put two-and-two together in regards to what medical procedures are ultimately going to be embraced, because that's the way parents are.  Science and technology change society in ways that politics can't even begin to touch.  You'll have exceptions, but if people see being trans as a condition that requires ongoing long-term treatment and they know they can "fix" it early with no long term repercussions, they definitely will.

Quoteto get your typical conservative Muslim or someone from Liberia to accept that gender is fluid

Nothing to do with the topic but have you actually met someone from Liberia? If you have, I'd love to hear everything about it. 

Quote from: jadis on Aug 14, 2023, 04:01 PMNothing to do with the topic but have you actually met someone from Liberia? If you have, I'd love to hear everything about it. 

I have a female colleague in Nigeria who does a lot of work in that part of the world and...lets just say being gay or trans isn't exactly something people have a happy reaction to over there.  They make Conservative Christians look like Ocasio-Cortez.  Democracy already has its work cut out for it in that part of the world, but compared to there Florida is heaven on Earth.

Yeah it's easy to forget how strange the decoupling of sex and gender appears to non-Westerners. One of the great books on the subject (https://www.amazon.fr/Sexe-Modernes-Pens%C3%A9e-Neutre-th%C3%A9orie/dp/2021414507) opens with the words "Gender is the West's latest great ideological message to the rest of the world." I happen to think it's an important, fascinating and intellectually productive message but we would do well to remember how new and strange it is in the grand scheme of things.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Aug 14, 2023, 03:54 PMThere isn't a single parent on the planet that would willingly have their kid be subjected to years of medication and other things if they know they can just align their sex and gender with a treatment or two early on.

As I said, in my experience, having had unnamed feelings in my brain that my gender was different since I was around 8 years old, or even earlier, in order for this "alignment of sex and gender" to work you would have to fundamentally mess with a kid's brain and alter their feelings and self-perception. Regardless of whether conversion therapy is pseudoscience or not, it would be immoral and abusive even if it worked. And the same goes for this supposed procedure.

For the record, I would say the exact same thing about a procedure to get rid of my ADHD. My gender identity and my ADHD are part of who I am, and frankly I'm insulted that you would think that my parents would ever force me to change who I am. That they would value societal norms like being cisgender or neurotypical over my own self, my own agency and my own worth as the person I am.

Of course I'm not naive, I know technology might head there. Doesn't mean it's a positive direction to head in.

Quote from: Mrs. Waffles on Aug 14, 2023, 04:43 PMAs I said, in my experience, having had unnamed feelings in my brain that my gender was different since I was around 8 years old, or ever earlier, in order for this "alignment of sex and gender" to work you would have to fundamentally mess with a kid's brain and alter their feelings and self-perception. Regardless of whether conversion therapy is pseudoscience or not, it would be immoral and abusive even if it worked. And the same goes for this supposed procedure.

For the record, I would say the exact same thing about a procedure to get rid of my ADHD. My gender identity and my ADHD are part of who I am, and frankly I'm insulted that you would think that my parents would ever force me to change who I am. That they would value societal norms like being cisgender or neurotypical over my own self, my own agency and my own worth as the person I am.

Of course I'm not naive, I know technology might head there. Doesn't mean it's a positive direction to head in.

Fair enough.  You and I have a different perspective on what constitutes identity and how important those things are and other factors.  I don't know whether you are right or wrong, but I appreciate you sharing.

Trump creates spectacle with debate guessing game (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4149489-trump-creates-spectacle-with-debate-guessing-game/)

A GOP Debate Without Trump Is the Definition of Pointlessness (https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-debate-plans/)

If I was Trump's advisor, I'd tell him to skip the debate. He has nothing to gain - and only stands to lose from participating. Without Trump there, I expect Vivek Ramaswamy to be the only candidate who gets a boost - unless Chris Christie can pull out another "Marco Rubio" debate trick on either Pence or DeSantis.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Aug 14, 2023, 05:55 AMYou told me to think about the LGBT question so I was merely expanding upon that for you.

I did start a paragraph with "Let's look at the lgbt question" and i related it directly to the argument we were having about whether people should just move out of conservative areas if they are lgbt. It wasn't an invitation to change the topic completely to specifically debating the science behind puberty blockers or gender affirming care. 

If you think the science is going to end up on the conservative side of those issues, that is a different argument from saying the solution is to let people vote with their feet.  If the science comes down strongly on one side or the other, that should be the determining factor.  Not people's feelings or politics.  Which coincides perfectly with my original argument.

QuoteYou didn't "destroy" anything.  I already made my point about the viability of moving and I still say it is the best option considering people have done some version of it for the entirety of human history.  The convenience or lack thereof of such a process isn't really all that relevant in the face of that truth.

I get that announcing to someone you destroyed their argument seems obnoxious, but from my perspective you didn't really respond to the bulk of my post.  You just went on a tangent about your beliefs on the trans issue specifically. Which i might have tolerated as an aside, but when it's your entire post i feel like i have to point out you have made a pivot.

even here you are just reiterating your original stance on people's ability to just move, not addressing any of the problems i pointed out with that solution.

QuoteIt is always going to be a way more viable option to move somewhere else than expecting massive status quo shifts in the socioeconomics or politics of the region you live in. Your only here on this planet for a relatively short period of time anyway - is there really anyone out there who wants to spend all their time fighting uphill battles in a place they really don't want to be in? Aspiration and inspiration are very different things.

There's no reason to presume this sentiment would not have applied just as much to black people in the jim crow south.  In fact, it's actually more pragmatic in a way to ethnically cleanse an area than it is to rid the same area of gay people, for the reason i mentioned before. You can't predict which households will produce a gay kid. 

So if all we're thinking about is less hassle, I've yet to hear why this logic wouldn't apply.  You just keep saying generically that race and gender are different, which is true but is incomplete as a counter argument. 

You need to get specific about what the difference is that makes it so your logic does apply to something like lgbt issues but not to racial segregation.

I've given you an example of a difference that actually works against your argument.  IE the fact that race being an immutable characteristic that is also directly heritable actually makes it much easier to segregate by race than to rid a conservative area of gays.  I've yet to hear an example of a difference that you believe works in favor of your argument.

QuoteTrans issues and race issues strike me a very different things in the context of greater society.  Based on the sheer amount of conflict those discussions cause in regards to people's personal and/or spiritual beliefs, I think its more like abortion in that it will always be something with no middle ground.  I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that you will have way better luck trying to make a Klansman change his or her views on African-Americans than you would trying to get your typical conservative Muslim or someone from Liberia to accept that gender is fluid. 

i mean that might even be true but why did you have to invoke Liberia? apply the same question to your average white southerner that opposed integration in the 50s and 60s vs your average conservative who is animated over trans issues today.

QuoteMy observations are not "incoherent".  I can tell blue states all day to go look at Sweden or tell the red states to chill out and they will never compromise because both sides believe that they are morally correct, not just ideologically correct.  Can the federal government figure it out? That's a tough one.

i didn't say "your observations are incoherent," i said there's an inherit incoherence on display in the type of federalism that would allow murder in one state but not in another, based on local politics.  There is a limit to how far the values of different sectors of a society can depart from one another before it becomes destabilizing.

Quote from: Mrs. Waffles on Aug 14, 2023, 07:23 AMThat stuff about "reversing gender dysphoria" is so horrifying to me as a prospect and I certainly hope it never comes to be. You do realize you're basically describing conversion therapy, right? Imagine hating trans identity so much that you want to rewire someone's mind to get rid of it.

In my experience, my dysphoria was so inextricably tied to my personality and my sense of self. Getting rid of my feeling that I was a girl wouldn't make me feel any more comfortable in male spaces and male identity, and if it did, then that just feels like creepy mind control shit.

I just want to know what is so terrible about someone identifying as a different gender that it would warrant that as a "solution".

it sounded more like futurst hype than conversion therapy to me.  That's why i asked him to expand on it cause i actually am curious about the claim that we're "within 10 years of getting rid of aging."

Quote from: Mrs. Waffles on Aug 14, 2023, 07:23 AMThat stuff about "reversing gender dysphoria" is so horrifying to me as a prospect and I certainly hope it never comes to be. You do realize you're basically describing conversion therapy, right? Imagine hating trans identity so much that you want to rewire someone's mind to get rid of it.

In my experience, my dysphoria was so inextricably tied to my personality and my sense of self. Getting rid of my feeling that I was a girl wouldn't make me feel any more comfortable in male spaces and male identity, and if it did, then that just feels like creepy mind control shit.

I just want to know what is so terrible about someone identifying as a different gender that it would warrant that as a "solution".

i mean if they could just reverse the dysphoria using neuro magic i have to say it doesn't make much sense to say that gender dysphoria is so bad that it's worth going through transition but not worth just getting rid of, if it were simple to do so.

You're thinking conversion therapy like clockwork orange style, he's think about future magic science that is going to make us all jacked cyborgs with 10 inch dicks who live forever. 

I am just talking shit to be clear, i don't know much about the current state of medicine.  But i do know that the futurists in 2012 talked a big game about what the year 2020 would be like, and boy did they miss the mark.  I'm not saying it can't happen but I'll believe it when i see it.

Quote from: Jwb on Aug 14, 2023, 10:19 PMit sounded more like futurst hype than conversion therapy to me.  That's why i asked him to expand on it cause i actually am curious about the claim that we're "within 10 years of getting rid of aging."

Oh we definitely are.  The rich will be the guinea pigs, but billions of dollars of investment appear to be paying off.

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20230712/Researchers-develop-a-chemical-approach-to-reverse-aging.aspx (https://www.news-medical.net/news/20230712/Researchers-develop-a-chemical-approach-to-reverse-aging.aspx)

Getting back on topic...I'll be watching the debate later this month out of curiosity.  Trump is saying he isn't going to show up for it, but I bet he'll find some way to crash the party.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Aug 14, 2023, 11:08 PMGetting back on topic...I'll be watching the debate later this month out of curiosity.  Trump is saying he isn't going to show up for it, but I bet he'll find some way to crash the party.

Trump is definitely not showing up. I think his lawyers are advising against it. He does want to try to do an interview though with someone. Forgot the guy's name.

CBS News poll finds Trump's big lead grows, as GOP voters dismiss indictments (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-poll-indictments-2023-08-20/)

QuoteWell, there's no debate about this: Right now, the Republican Party would easily re-nominate Donald Trump for 2024. And it's not close.

It's weird. Trump not showing up to the debates in this context is actually kind of an alpha move in the sense that he's the clear front runner and stands to gain nothing by giving a platform to his clear non competitors. Even though the convention is obviously you have a primary when you are running against the opposition's incumbent.  And you skip the primary if your guy is the incumbent.  But that doesn't benefit him and his followers don't care, so fuck it.

That's the kind of spine that nobody else in the GOP has, which is why none of them will replace him.  His main biggest competition are all scared to say a word against him.  The only guy willing to go ham on Trump is Christie and that's cause of personal beef since Trump completely backstabbed Christie in 16, after recruiting him as a sycophant. That's why i wouldve liked to see them go at it, cause Christie is on a kamikaze mission with nothing to lose.  Which is always fun to see.  But Trump is probably smart to avoid it.

First Primary debate is tonight at 9pm est I believe or maybe 8pm will find out for sure.

Edit: yep 9pm Est.

Trump is like smart to avoid it. His legal team forced him not to. He still wanted to. You give him too much credit jwb.

He is still doing some kind of interview thing after the debate but its a one on one thing with a Fox News pundit.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Aug 14, 2023, 10:26 PMOh we definitely are.  The rich will be the guinea pigs, but billions of dollars of investment appear to be paying off.

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20230712/Researchers-develop-a-chemical-approach-to-reverse-aging.aspx (https://www.news-medical.net/news/20230712/Researchers-develop-a-chemical-approach-to-reverse-aging.aspx)

Reverse aging is NOT even anywhere to being close. This idiot is attempting it and he looks worse than when he started

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/bryan-johnson-tech-entrepreneur-spends-124752370.html

Quote from: DJChameleon on Aug 23, 2023, 02:37 PMReverse aging is NOT even anywhere to being close. This idiot is attempting it and he looks worse than when he started

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/bryan-johnson-tech-entrepreneur-spends-124752370.html

That dude isn't doing anything related to what I'm talking about or what I linked to.  He's just spending tons of money in an extreme way on stuff people already try to do with dieting and conventional measures.  He's going to have to wait another decade if he wants the good stuff.

I expect to see Ron DeSantis try and defend Trump whenever that opportunity arises to court Trump voters. Vivek might have a similar tact, but I'm guessing it won't be as strong as DeSantis is trying repair his image, particularly with Trump voters. If Trump drops out of the race, for whatever reason, these candidates are going to need to position themselves in a way where they can recoup those Trump voters. Christie, as critical of Trump as he is, has no shot of doing so. That said, he can be entertaining in debates. I'm really hoping he can trap DeSantis in a moment similar to what he did with Marco Rubio years ago.

I expect Mike Pence, Tim Scott, Doug Burgum, and Asa Hutchinson to be complete non-factors in the debate and viewers will forget what they said by the next day. The only one of those four that might be interesting is Pence, as I'm sure the moderators will try and force him to take a strong position against Trump for January 6th, but I'm guessing with that question, as with many others, he'll revert to typical politician mode and give a non-answer about his faith in God and his faith in this great nation. But if any of the other candidates want to take a shot at Trump's failings in office, they've got his former VP right there to direct the vitriol at - which would, if they do it right, force Pence to either defend the actions of the administration or blame the failings on Trump or other officials.

Nikki Haley is a bit of a wildcard - she could be a non-factor or she might have a clippable moment like Kamala did in her first DNC debate (when she implied Biden was a racist).

I think Vivek is going to be the smartest guy on that stage, but I haven't seen him in a debate like this. Some candidates in debates like this get short-changed just by virtue of the smaller amount of questions they get asked by the moderators - so if that happens with Vivek, will he have the balls to interject and assert himself while others are speaking, even to the chagrin and chiding of the moderators? For Vivek, this is his 'first impressions' moment on the big stage,  so the stakes are particularly high for him. If he does it right, I think we'll continue to see Vivek's poll numbers rise after the debate and DeSantis's numbers fall.

Trump made the right call in not attending the debate. It will be hilarious if he tells Tucker he's very excited to watch the debate later and future debates to decide who's most suited to being his VP.

^ Pretty much how I think it's all going to go down also.

Vivek is basically a young Trump without the "daddy gave me a million dollars" story and the bankruptcies, plus he speaks in complete sentences lol.  He's going to say that Trump was good but he's too old now and somebody young needs to pick up that mantle. DeSantis can't sell that kind of message as easily because he's an introverted misanthrope and has the charisma of a hippo's backside.

Michael Bloomberg tried to pull his own kind of "outsider" approach during the Democrat primaries before but he fell flat on his face in an actual debate because he's not used to talking to other living human beings outside the billionaire class.  Vivek might screw up, but his chances of gaffing himself out of existence like Bloomberg are fairly low.  Vivek does like 100+ media appearances a month and does tons of long-form interviews and podcasts where he has to respond to criticisms or difficult questions.

Quote from: SGR on Aug 23, 2023, 04:07 PMTrump made the right call in not attending the debate. It will be hilarious if he tells Tucker he's very excited to watch the debate later and future debates to decide who's most suited to being his VP.

Turns out Trump's team was way ahead of me. They created this website below, branding the debate as 'The Battle for the Vice Presidency':

https://www.vpdebate2024.com/

The most hilarious thing about it that I can see is that whoever put the images together put a small fly on Pence's head, referencing this moment from his VP debate with Kamala Harris:

Quote from: SGR on Aug 23, 2023, 04:07 PMI expect to see Ron DeSantis try and defend Trump whenever that opportunity arises to court Trump voters. Vivek might have a similar tact, but I'm guessing it won't be as strong as DeSantis is trying repair his image, particularly with Trump voters. If Trump drops out of the race, for whatever reason, these candidates are going to need to position themselves in a way where they can recoup those Trump voters. Christie, as critical of Trump as he is, has no shot of doing so. That said, he can be entertaining in debates. I'm really hoping he can trap DeSantis in a moment similar to what he did with Marco Rubio years ago.

I expect Mike Pence, Tim Scott, Doug Burgum, and Asa Hutchinson to be complete non-factors in the debate and viewers will forget what they said by the next day. The only one of those four that might be interesting is Pence, as I'm sure the moderators will try and force him to take a strong position against Trump for January 6th, but I'm guessing with that question, as with many others, he'll revert to typical politician mode and give a non-answer about his faith in God and his faith in this great nation. But if any of the other candidates want to take a shot at Trump's failings in office, they've got his former VP right there to direct the vitriol at - which would, if they do it right, force Pence to either defend the actions of the administration or blame the failings on Trump or other officials.

Nikki Haley is a bit of a wildcard - she could be a non-factor or she might have a clippable moment like Kamala did in her first DNC debate (when she implied Biden was a racist).

I think Vivek is going to be the smartest guy on that stage, but I haven't seen him in a debate like this. Some candidates in debates like this get short-changed just by virtue of the smaller amount of questions they get asked by the moderators - so if that happens with Vivek, will he have the balls to interject and assert himself while others are speaking, even to the chagrin and chiding of the moderators? For Vivek, this is his 'first impressions' moment on the big stage,  so the stakes are particularly high for him. If he does it right, I think we'll continue to see Vivek's poll numbers rise after the debate and DeSantis's numbers fall.

Trump made the right call in not attending the debate. It will be hilarious if he tells Tucker he's very excited to watch the debate later and future debates to decide who's most suited to being his VP.

i don't think being the smartest guy in the room is even worth that much in a room full of Republicans.  There were plenty of people smarter than Trump in 16.

In my mind none of them seem to currently stand a shot. I don't see Vivek as actual direct competition to Trump.  His only hope is if somehow the legal issues end up tanking Trump and he's just there to fill the void. Which is what i can only assume is why he won't actually go at Trump at all.  He is probably hoping that either Trump tanks himself or that he can maybe get a cabinet position. There's no other excuse for campaigning against a forceful front like Trump while running defense for him in interviews.  Other than being a born pussy.

Quote from: Jwb on Aug 23, 2023, 07:29 PMHe is probably hoping that either Trump tanks himself or that he can maybe get a cabinet position. There's no other excuse for campaigning against a forceful front like Trump while running defense for him in interviews.  Other than being a born pussy.

It's a win-win for him either way, isn't it? If Trump wins the nomination, Vivek could get a cabinet position or even the VP slot since Trump values loyalty. If Trump ends up getting tanked by legal issues, then because Vivek has run defense for him, then he stands a much better shot of recouping Trump votes than someone like Pence or DeSantis.

Per the smart guy comments, you're not wrong. Trump has a specific kind of intelligence though that none of the other GOP also-rans had in 2016 - and Hillary didn't have it either - and that's the the intelligence of communication and how to connect with the common man. Ben Carson for example is a really intelligent guy, but his verbal communication skills were a snooze-fest. That's why Trump's 'Because you'd be in jail' line got him a round of applause.


I think Vivek has a similar intelligence in regards to communication - without perhaps as much political sniping. If we watch the debates tonight, I'm betting Vivek comes across as a relatable human while DeSantis comes across as a robot in a suit.

If nothing changes in terms of Trump's clear and outsized lead, will he show up to any of the future debates?

Quote from: Jwb on Aug 23, 2023, 07:29 PMThere's no other excuse for campaigning against a forceful front like Trump while running defense for him in interviews.  Other than being a born pussy.

Same reason why nobody is going that hard against Biden on the Dem side, not even Gavin Newsom (who everyone keeps telling me is going to jump in and pull the rug out from under Biden's feet at some point).  Everyone is hoping the two old ****s fall over in some form or fashion.

Quote from: SGR on Aug 23, 2023, 07:49 PMIt's a win-win for him either way, isn't it? If Trump wins the nomination, Vivek could get a cabinet position or even the VP slot since Trump values loyalty. If Trump ends up getting tanked by legal issues, then because Vivek has run defense for him, then he stands a much better shot of recouping Trump votes than someone like Pence or DeSantis.

Per the smart guy comments, you're not wrong. Trump has a specific kind of intelligence though that none of the other GOP also-rans had in 2016 - and Hillary didn't have it either - and that's the the intelligence of communication and how to connect with the common man. Ben Carson for example is a really intelligent guy, but his verbal communication skills were a snooze-fest. That's why Trump's 'Because you'd be in jail' line got him a round of applause.

I think Vivek has a similar intelligence in regards to communication - without perhaps as much political sniping. If we watch the debates tonight, I'm betting Vivek comes across as a relatable human while DeSantis comes across as a robot in a suit.

if you are someone who has resigned themselves to the fact that they can't actually take Trump on, sure it's the smart play.  In other words it's the safe option.

The other idea floating around is that Trump fans are so loyal to him that it's basically seen as too risky to attack him because those people will presumably respond negatively.  But i think what this over looks is what drew these people to Trump in the first place. One thing he projects more than anything else is strength and a no nonsense approach to dealing with his adversaries. Think of the campaign he ran in 16 and what really set him apart. Those are the qualities his supporters gravitated towards. Not being a policy wonk or even a good rhetorician. It was being the guy willing to say shit like "i like the ones that didn't get caught."

So really it's not impossible that somebody with the same characteristics that Trump has could actually come along and challenge him directly.  I think that's what his supporters would gravitate towards and respect more, if only there were somebody who could actually pull that off.

So far there just isn't, in my view. To challenge trump is a risky move.  But it's the kind of move that somebody like Trump would make.  That tells you the difference right there.

So yeah, for someone like Vivek maybe he would or maybe he wouldnt be able to take on Trump. I don't think his current approach would ever get him there though.  But seeing how much legal jeopardy Trump is in, there's a non negligible chance that Trump's campaign will get torpedoed without Vivek having to lift a finger.  So that does factor into how smart it is to play it safe vs going hard.

The one thing i would point out is that you can't assume you get another chance in 4 years.  Christie learned that lesson the hard way.  Sure, typically getting a role in the cabinet would improve your chances of staying power. But that certainly wasn't true under the last Trump administration.  So there's also an overlooked risk to banking on that route.  You are banking on the continued loyalty of Trump for the foreseeable future.  At the very least the next 4 years.  Very few if any have won that honor.

Speaking of Christie, its honestly embarrassing how phony his sudden sense of morality is as well.  We all remember how he acted when he actually had skin in the game.  Just like the rest of them are right now.

As for DeSantis, i can't imagine him getting any sort of position in the admin after all this.  I could be wrong but my impulse tells me Trump already sees him as a traitor. So i have no idea on earth why he of all people is still playing nice.  Looks like the current republican contenders consist of one wanna be dictator and a bunch of cowards who are scared of him.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Aug 23, 2023, 11:51 PMSame reason why nobody is going that hard against Biden on the Dem side, not even Gavin Newsom (who everyone keeps telling me is going to jump in and pull the rug out from under Biden's feet at some point).  Everyone is hoping the two old ****s fall over in some form or fashion.

Thats a ridiculous comparison.  I don't know how many times I'm going to hear people act like it's weird not to primary your own incumbent.  What fuckin world do you people live in? The fact that there are even Dems trying to challenge Biden as an incumbent is not normal in the first place.  If anything it's a sign of weakness for Biden.

Debate went as I expected.  Only wrinkle was that DeSantis didn't flub anything or get attacked much by the other candidates.

Quote from: Jwb on Aug 24, 2023, 03:15 AMThats a ridiculous comparison.  I don't know how many times I'm going to hear people act like it's weird not to primary your own incumbent.  What fuckin world do you people live in? The fact that there are even Dems trying to challenge Biden as an incumbent is not normal in the first place.  If anything it's a sign of weakness for Biden.

In this polarized environment we find ourselves in, I don't think it is ridiculous at all.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Aug 24, 2023, 05:55 AMDebate went as I expected.  Only wrinkle was that DeSantis didn't flub anything or get attacked much by the other candidates.

Didn't quite go as I expected - I didn't quite expect Pence to be so combative. Not that I think it really helped his prospects. Vivek did really good at the beginning, but as the debate went on with climate change and with Ukraine, I think he faltered a bit. I think, as of right now, he's too much like Trump, holds too many of the same opinions to be viable as a VP candidate. Trump needs a counterbalance on the ticket (as he did in 2016 with Pence), which Vivek is clearly not. But Vivek did prove he could debate with governors and senators and his repeated confrontations with Pence showed that he wasn't going to back down. That being said, unless things change, I don't think I see a real path for him to be a VP - Trump would need to drop from the race, and if that happens, then I could see him winning the primary and recouping the Trump base of support.

Christie was a disappointment. His whole anti-Trump schtick revolves around him verbally prosecuting and selling the case against Trump - he had ways he could've done that, but he didn't. He could've tried to explain why one or more of the indictments should be viewed as serious marks against Trump's legitimacy, but he didn't. And a couple of his attacks, like the "ChatGPT" and "Obama" attacks against Vivek just landed flat. He also was the only one asked about UFOs (maybe the moderators thought he'd be the most likely candidate to be abducted, after the aliens mistake him for a cow)

Hutchinson/Burgum were completely forgettable, as I expected. Although I must admit that every time Hutchinson appeared on camera, I couldn't help but think he looked like a cross between Cowboys owner Jerry Jones and Lindsey Graham. I expect both of these two to drop out before the next debate.

Tim Scott was a bit better, but only marginally - he didn't get much speaking time, and he didn't leave a mark.

DeSantis commited no serious gaffes, but he failed to leave a serious impression. He did himself no favors in proving that he could be genuine and authentic, repeating canned soundbites (like: "sending Biden back to his basement", which got really old by the third time he said it), and looking generally uncomfortable. His only failure was waffling on responding whether or not he agreed with Mike Pence's decision to certify the electors, which he eventually did after getting pushed by Pence, in a goofy way: "I got no beef with the Vice President".

Haley surprised me. I expected maybe one good soundbite at most, but she was consistently performing well through the entire debate. I saw no mistakes, even if you don't agree with everything she said, I think she came off convincing. She nailed Vivek on Ukraine ("You have no foreign policy experience, and it shows"), she somewhat refreshingly reminded the audience about how hollow Republicans are when it comes to promising they're going to cut spending, she gave a great answer on abortion, etc. I think if there was any winner of this debate, it was her - and while she did criticize Trump a bit (which would seemingly lower her chances of VP slot), I don't think she's completely off the table - and I think she would serve as a decent counterbalance to Trump.

All that being said, I think Trump's eventual VP, assuming he does win the nomination, will most likely come from outside these candidates, but if not, it'll probably be Nikki Haley.

Quote from: SGR on Aug 24, 2023, 02:43 PMDidn't quite go as I expected - I didn't quite expect Pence to be so combative. Not that I think it really helped his prospects. Vivek did really good at the beginning, but as the debate went on with climate change and with Ukraine, I think he faltered a bit. I think, as of right now, he's too much like Trump, holds too many of the same opinions to be viable as a VP candidate. Trump needs a counterbalance on the ticket (as he did in 2016 with Pence), which Vivek is clearly not. But Vivek did prove he could debate with governors and senators and his repeated confrontations with Pence showed that he wasn't going to back down. That being said, unless things change, I don't think I see a real path for him to be a VP - Trump would need to drop from the race, and if that happens, then I could see him winning the primary and recouping the Trump base of support.

Christie was a disappointment. His whole anti-Trump schtick revolves around him verball prosecuting and selling the case against Trump - he had ways he could've done that, but he didn't. He could've tried to explain why one or more of the indictments should be viewed as serious marks against Trump's legitimacy, but he didn't. And a couple of his attacks, like the "ChatGPT" and "Obama" attacks against Vivek just landed flat. He also was the only one asked about UFOs (maybe the moderators thought he'd be the most likely candidate to be abducted, after the aliens mistake him for a cow)

Hutchinson/Burgum were completely forgettable, as I expected. Although I must admit that every time Hutchinson appeared on camera, I couldn't help but think he looked like a cross between Cowboys owner Jerry Jones and Lindsey Graham. I expect both of these two to drop out before the next debate.

Tim Scott was a bit better, but only marginally - he didn't get much speaking time, and he didn't leave a mark.

DeSantis commited no serious gaffes, but he failed to leave a serious impression. He did himself no favors in proving that he could be genuine and authentic, repeating canned soundbites (like: "sending Biden back to his basement", which got really old by the third time he said it), and looking generally uncomfortable. His only failure was waffling on responding whether or not he agreed with Mike Pence's decision to certify the electors, which he eventually did after getting pushed by Pence, in a goofy way: "I got no beef with the Vice President".

Haley surprised me. I expected maybe one good soundbite at most, but she was consistently performing well through the entire debate. I saw no mistakes, even if you don't agree with everything she said, I think she came off convincing. She nailed Vivek on Ukraine ("You have no foreign policy experience, and it shows"), she somewhat refreshingly reminded the audience about how hollow Republicans are when it comes to promising they're going to cut spending, she gave a great answer on abortion, etc. I think if there was any winner of this debate, it was her - and while she did criticize Trump a bit (which would seemingly lower her chances of VP slot), I don't think she's completely off the table - and I think she would serve as a decent counterbalance to Trump.

All that being said, I think Trump's eventual VP, assuming he does win the nomination, will most likely come from outside these candidates, but if not, it'll probably be Nikki Haley.

Wow my analysis of the debate is a bit different than yours.

Vivek held his own because he comes off as a debate lord. He was probably head of his debate team or club back in college and high school. He was all over the place and having fun doing it. He showed that he could wrestle with the big dogs. I think he'd be a perfect VP for Trump because if Trump is smart he would get behind someone that is young so that he can grab that audience/demographic. Not that Trump really needs help anyways since most Trump voters are like in a cult and follow him blindly. I liked his energy even though I disagreed with a lot of the things he said. I would vote for him purely from the fact that he's 38! We need a young President/VP. YOUTTTTH!

Pence was on the attack quite often but most of the attacks were against Vivek and they were just ageist attacks. "oh you are too young and inexperienced". Shut up old man. Pence flopped so hard to me, he didn't do himself any favors. He just took up space and showed that he's competent at debates but didn't really stand out or give any good sound bites. These debates are all about the sound bites later on that the candidates can use in their own campaigns to help steal away some of Trump's lead.

I loved Christie's performance he was just making too much sense. My liberal friends were a bit shocked and were siding with many of his points up until near the end when he started attacking the teacher's unions.

The two that you mentioned which I don't even know their names are like you said forgettable. I did tune into the debate a bit late but yeah they didn't stand out at all.

Tim Scott was so faith focused and I guess that's his schtick but like meh just another black Republican. I kind of tuned him out. He could've been great but I don't know if I heard much from him.

Damn I have a meeting to get to. I will finish this up later with DeSantis and Nikki.

My opinion on each of the candidates:
(https://i.ibb.co/VV04fJT/059-EFBC0-6338-4222-84-D1-10-F7566-E478-E.gif)

Quote from: DJChameleon on Aug 24, 2023, 05:01 PMWow my analysis of the debate is a bit different than yours.

Vivek held his own because he comes off as a debate lord. He was probably head of his debate team or club back in college and high school. He was all over the place and having fun doing it. He showed that he could wrestle with the big dogs. I think he'd be a perfect VP for Trump because if Trump is smart he would get behind someone that is young so that he can grab that audience/demographic. Not that Trump really needs help anyways since most Trump voters are like in a cult and follow him blindly. I liked his energy even though I disagreed with a lot of the things he said. I would vote for him purely from the fact that he's 38! We need a young President/VP. YOUTTTTH!

Pence was on the attack quite often but most of the attacks were against Vivek and they were just ageist attacks. "oh you are too young and inexperienced". Shut up old man. Pence flopped so hard to me, he didn't do himself any favors. He just took up space and showed that he's competent at debates but didn't really stand out or give any good sound bites. These debates are all about the sound bites later on that the candidates can use in their own campaigns to help steal away some of Trump's lead.

I loved Christie's performance he was just making too much sense. My liberal friends were a bit shocked and were siding with many of his points up until near the end when he started attacking the teacher's unions.

The two that you mentioned which I don't even know their names are like you said forgettable. I did tune into the debate a bit late but yeah they didn't stand out at all.

Tim Scott was so faith focused and I guess that's his schtick but like meh just another black Republican. I kind of tuned him out. He could've been great but I don't know if I heard much from him.

Damn I have a meeting to get to. I will finish this up later with DeSantis and Nikki.

I don't think your analysis is much different from mine save for you liking Christie and thinking Vivek would be a good VP choice for Trump. Per your point, by virtue of Vivek being VP, I don't think that would see a substantial increase in young people voting for Trump (that's assuming they vote at all, which they usually dont). There's definitely benefits to Vivek as VP for Trump, but I see downsides well:

Pros:

• He's much, much younger than Trump
• He'd add diversity to the ticket, not only in terms of being Indian, but also as a Hindu
• As a VP, I think he'd be capable of handling all the usual VP duties, plus he'd probably excel as a pointman - e.g. we've got Kamala Harris as our 'AI Czar' right now, I don't think there's anyone who'd disagree that Vivek would do a better job at that.
  

Cons:

• He's almost too much like Trump in terms of beliefs and approach - this would make him a poor counterbalance and I doubt Vivek would help Trump capture Evangelical votes like Pence did - Trump is a well-known risk taker, independents might be less willing to vote for Trump, given his age, when his VP also comes off as both a risk taker and inexperienced
• He'd be at constant risk of 'showing Trump up', which is not desirable for a VP, especially in the case of Trump's VP - his energy level would be higher than Trump's, the way he articulates things would be better than Trump, and he might be less prone to walking in lockstep with Trump's decisions
• Similar to first con - if he was VP, Trump's backup plan (if he died in office), would be someone who's never held political office
• I don't see Vivek appealing to suburban women who may have voted from Trump in 2016, but soured on him by 2020

Haley sounded pretty decent up until the Ukraine stuff, because anyone who knows her history at all (she sat on Boeing's board of directors among other things) and the fact she has a Super PAC that has military-industrial complex donations, plus she's taken money in the past from Lockheed and I believe a few others. So even if she does have a more experience-based opinion, I don't know why she'd advocate to send more money without serious oversight, especially after she partly blamed Republicans on adding so much to the national debt.  And as I and others have pointed out on another topic before....the U.S. government has a terrible record keeping track of money both here and abroad.

Vivek rightly pointed out that he's probably the only guy on that stage not being backed by special interests.  He's burning tens of millions of his own money to try to run, with the rest coming from mostly individual smaller donors through email campaigns and the usual fare.  That makes him more an actual outsider akin to Andrew Yang as opposed to how Trump gained ground in 2016.  I'm curious how far he'll get, especially if Trump somehow does get sidelined heading into next year.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Aug 24, 2023, 10:38 PMHaley sounded pretty decent up until the Ukraine stuff, because anyone who knows her history at all (she sat on Boeing's board of directors among other things) and the fact she has a Super PAC that has military-industrial complex donations, plus she's taken money in the past from Lockheed and I believe a few others. So even if she does have a more experience-based opinion, I don't know why she'd advocate to send more money without serious oversight, especially after she partly blamed Republicans on adding so much to the national debt.  And as I and others have pointed out on another topic before....the U.S. government has a terrible record keeping track of money both here and abroad.

Vivek rightly pointed out that he's probably the only guy on that stage not being backed by special interests.  He's burning tens of millions of his own money to try to run, with the rest coming from mostly individual smaller donors through email campaigns and the usual fare.  That makes him more an actual outsider akin to Andrew Yang as opposed to how Trump gained ground in 2016.  I'm curious how far he'll get, especially if Trump somehow does get sidelined heading into next year.

Good point. Haley, like many others on that stage, is a uniparty warhawk. I would almost certainly not agree with her approach to Ukraine. I'm not saying we need to be isolationists or anything, but jeez, we just got out of Afghanistan, which has lasted most of my entire life, and it would be nice if we could get a little more explanation for what our end-goals are, and what our ideal end-state is beyond: "Putin is a murderer! Stand with Ukraine!". If we do have a goal beyond enriching defense contractors and milking the teat of the MIC, like for example using this proxy war as a way to weaken Russia despite probably pushing them further into the arms of China (BRICS is happening already), in a way that is geopolitically advantageous to us in the long run, it would be nice to know that. That being said, the format of these televised debates (e.g. "Explain in 30 seconds how you'd solve homelessness") is not at all conducive to any kind of nuanced or detailed discussion - and I think we as the public are worse off for that. I'm glad podcasts as a medium are eating into their share of the pie.

My brief writeup of my impressions, just for the record, was based on perception, optics, and their persuasiveness, not necessarily how much I agree with any of them politically.

The mugshot of the century is finally here:

(https://i0.wp.com/thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/08/230824-donald-trump-mugshot-1x1-cs-962f40.png?w=2000&ssl=1)

He's back on Twitter as well 8)

I wonder which rapper will use Trump's mugshot as an album cover first?

Quote from: jimmy jazz on Aug 25, 2023, 04:16 AMHe's back on Twitter as well 8)

Makes sense. Now that Elon has turned Twitter into a right wing hellscape, Trump really has no reason to keep sticking with his own right wing hellscape.

Quote from: SGR on Aug 25, 2023, 05:04 AMI wonder which rapper will use Trump's mugshot as an album cover first?

Whoever ends up doing that should call that album "The Best Words". It's the perfect Trump quote for a lyrical rap album.  :laughing:

Quote from: SGR on Aug 25, 2023, 03:15 AMThe mugshot of the century is finally here:

(https://i0.wp.com/thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/08/230824-donald-trump-mugshot-1x1-cs-962f40.png?w=2000&ssl=1)

I'm getting this printed on a shirt that says Keep Him Locked Up. My friend wants to just have Lock Him Up on her shirt.

I put the keep part because obviously he posted bail. He needs to be kept in there.

Quote from: SGR on Aug 24, 2023, 07:52 PMI don't think your analysis is much different from mine save for you liking Christie and thinking Vivek would be a good VP choice for Trump. Per your point, by virtue of Vivek being VP, I don't think that would see a substantial increase in young people voting for Trump (that's assuming they vote at all, which they usually dont). There's definitely benefits to Vivek as VP for Trump, but I see downsides well:

Pros:

• He's much, much younger than Trump
• He'd add diversity to the ticket, not only in terms of being Indian, but also as a Hindu
• As a VP, I think he'd be capable of handling all the usual VP duties, plus he'd probably excel as a pointman - e.g. we've got Kamala Harris as our 'AI Czar' right now, I don't think there's anyone who'd disagree that Vivek would do a better job at that.
  

Cons:

• He's almost too much like Trump in terms of beliefs and approach - this would make him a poor counterbalance and I doubt Vivek would help Trump capture Evangelical votes like Pence did - Trump is a well-known risk taker, independents might be less willing to vote for Trump, given his age, when his VP also comes off as both a risk taker and inexperienced
• He'd be at constant risk of 'showing Trump up', which is not desirable for a VP, especially in the case of Trump's VP - his energy level would be higher than Trump's, the way he articulates things would be better than Trump, and he might be less prone to walking in lockstep with Trump's decisions
• Similar to first con - if he was VP, Trump's backup plan (if he died in office), would be someone who's never held political office
• I don't see Vivek appealing to suburban women who may have voted from Trump in 2016, but soured on him by 2020

I agree with this for the most part but because he has little experience I think if Trumps team got a hold of him they would teach him to tone it down a bit so he doesn't eclipse Trump as much but Trump does a good job of being like center of attention. I think have two loud characters together would be dope. You don't necessarily need to have one that's more subdued to counter balance. Trump's staff will school the young buck on how to conduct himself and they would tag team the shit out of Biden/Harris. Also if Trump passes, it's no big problem that he's inexperienced in the political game. He has run a successful company and much like Trump he knows you hire/appoint people that are experts in their field that know what they are doing to make you look good. I'm sure he would do fine.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Aug 25, 2023, 07:56 AMI'm getting this printed on a shirt that says Keep Him Locked Up. My friend wants to just have Lock Him Up on her shirt.

I put the keep part because obviously he posted bail. He needs to be kept in there.

The weird thing with this mugshot is that it's going to be used, perhaps in equal measure, by both his supporters and his detractors. I don't know many mugshots that have effectively served as a Rorschach test before this one.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Aug 25, 2023, 08:00 AMI agree with this for the most part but because he has little experience I think if Trumps team got a hold of him they would teach him to tone it down a bit so he doesn't eclipse Trump as much but Trump does a good job of being like center of attention. I think have two loud characters together would be dope. You don't necessarily need to have one that's more subdued to counter balance. Trump's staff will school the young buck on how to conduct himself and they would tag team the shit out of Biden/Harris. Also if Trump passes, it's no big problem that he's inexperienced in the political game. He has run a successful company and much like Trump he knows you hire/appoint people that are experts in their field that know what they are doing to make you look good. I'm sure he would do fine.

That's fair. I think, as you point out, Vivek could be sold as a net positive for Trump's electoral chances. I suppose I'm just not convinced that politically, he'd be the most effective choice. I could certainly be wrong. All that being said, if Vivek was VP, there'd be no way I'd miss the Vivek/Kamala debate. That debate would be hilarious.

Just looking back on previous recent VPs though, and what my perception of their political advantages were, Vivek as a VP for Trump, I think, would be an outlier that doesn't fit into any of the same paradigms.

I've read some fluff pieces about Trump possibly getting RFK Jr. as VP, which is completely ridiculous and a complete fantasy. When's the last time POTUS/VPOTUS on a ticket crossed party lines? Lincoln/Andrew Johnson?

In the late spring I started seeing Vivek pop up on social media and the algorithms were feeding him to me so I'm not surprised he is where he is now.  The only pseudo threats to Trump are Ron and Vivek but I've never believed anyone had a real shot without Trump becoming ineligible... just as a general thought, I never really understood why debate stages are packed with people with 0 shot at winning a nominee. But I digress.

I question whether Vivek is really even running for President, or if he's really just 1) Vying for VP or cabinet 2) There to swat away the anti-trump candidates or 3) Gain name recognition and fans to position himself to eventually make a real run in a post-Trump world. I'm guessing it's a mix of all, but mostly number 3 given his young age. Maybe he's the right wing Mayor Pete. Either way, I think all along Ron and Vivek are just kinda positioning themselves to be the nominee in the event Trump can't run.

I hate Ron, and pretty much all republicans at different degrees, but there is a small part of me that does feel bad for him lol. I do feel like every little weird moment he has explodes on the internet and there's an overwhelming chorus of "he has no charisma" and beat downs that follow. I find his governing and political views insulting and idiotic, but sometimes it feels a little Howard-Dean-Weird-Yell-ish. But again, he's a piece of shit so I can't bring myself to care too much.

I actually like hearing Christie at the debates. I know he has zero shot, and the bar is incredibly low, but it's nice to hear a Republican not sucking Trumps nuts once in awhile. The ChatGPT line was definitely pre-meditated tho and imo it didn't hit as hard as everyone pretended.

Yet to see a really good Trump mugshot meme tbh

Quote from: SGR on Aug 25, 2023, 03:54 PMThat's fair. I think, as you pok³33All that being said, if Vivek was VP, there'd be no way I'd miss the Vivek/Kamala debate. That debate would be hilarious.

Yes! Vivek will roll all over Kamala well it might be equal footing. I forgot she's a lawyer or was a judge whatever. I don't remember how great her debate skills are but it would be an awesome debate to watch though.

I think a Vivek / Tim Scott ticket might be kinda interesting in regards to the general election.  Two different kinds of energy, but I think it would play well.  Plus they'd be one of the most "diverse" tickets in the history of the country, and the first without an old white person in the VP or POTUS seat, so the liberal media would have to go through some pretty hilarious mental gymnastics if they try some of their usual tactics.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Aug 26, 2023, 10:31 PMI think a Vivek / Tim Scott ticket might be kinda interesting in regards to the general election.  Two different kinds of energy, but I think it would play well.  Plus they'd be one of the most "diverse" tickets in the history of the country, and the first without an old white person in the VP or POTUS seat, so the liberal media would have to go through some pretty hilarious mental gymnastics if they try some of their usual tactics.

I mean, there's plenty of smear tactics - don't think they'd have a lot of trouble. e.g.

Vivek is a Trump wannabe (mini-Trump), he has a Napoleon complex, he's a homophobe/transphobe, plus they could still label him as racist against Blacks or Hispanics - and I'm sure that if Tim Scott was on the ticket, certain members of the media, directly or subtly, would imply he's an Uncle Tom.

A Vivek/Scott ticket is certainly an interesting prospect though.

I watched like the first hour and 20 minutes of the debate.  I hate that you have to watch it on fox news.  I like to play shit like that in the background on youtube while i do shit and just listen to the audio. Shit is annoying and almost makes me inclined to tune out out of pure spite for the inconvenience.

But yeah, Vivek had the best night since he did a lot to draw attention to himself in the first 30 minutes or so.  And this is purely conjecture on my part but I'm guessing more people are going to see the beginning of the debate than the entire thing anyway.  I wonder what the ratio is of people who tap out early.

I think he held his own and showed the kind of firebrand energy that does work on republican voters. Some of the same energy that Trump taps into.  But that being said; SGR is right that he's a bit too much like Trump. But Trump also has (or at least had) a sort of authentic swagger that Vivek doesn't have.  Like he doesn't come across as authentic to me.  He looks like a sales guy from Dell who put on a good suit and tried to do his best Trump impression. And his smile looks almost sinister lol.

The chatgpt line by Christie was true even though it fell flat.  It was a shit delivery on his part and he clearly had no confidence in it, but the basic fact that Vivek opened his performance with biting an Obama line in a very canned way that was also cringe as fuck. But you can't expect people to have that kind of memory.  Vivek got it and fired back with "give me a hug then." Which was a reference to Christie hugging Obama.  Which was actually a quick comeback on his part, although it also got drowned out in the noise of the crowd and the back and forth, so the timing of that fell flat as well. 

I thought Haley made him look pretty bad during the foreign policy exchange and Pence got him with the on the job training line, but at the same time why the fuck are we watching a debate where the front runner isn't there, nobody is seriously willing to attack him other than Christie trying a half assed line of attacks that failed miserably.  Haley was able to navigate pushing back against Trump better than Christie did, but they all would still support him even if he is convicted of any the indictments, so yeah.  Very feeble pushback at that.

And nobody even bothered to go after DeSantis. It was all about the 3rd place guy vivek. To me, the debate really made the republican party look weak and empty absent Trump.

Quote from: SGR on Aug 24, 2023, 07:52 PMI don't think your analysis is much different from mine save for you liking Christie and thinking Vivek would be a good VP choice for Trump. Per your point, by virtue of Vivek being VP, I don't think that would see a substantial increase in young people voting for Trump (that's assuming they vote at all, which they usually dont). There's definitely benefits to Vivek as VP for Trump, but I see downsides well:

Pros:

• He's much, much younger than Trump
• He'd add diversity to the ticket, not only in terms of being Indian, but also as a Hindu
• As a VP, I think he'd be capable of handling all the usual VP duties, plus he'd probably excel as a pointman - e.g. we've got Kamala Harris as our 'AI Czar' right now, I don't think there's anyone who'd disagree that Vivek would do a better job at that.
  

Cons:

• He's almost too much like Trump in terms of beliefs and approach - this would make him a poor counterbalance and I doubt Vivek would help Trump capture Evangelical votes like Pence did - Trump is a well-known risk taker, independents might be less willing to vote for Trump, given his age, when his VP also comes off as both a risk taker and inexperienced
• He'd be at constant risk of 'showing Trump up', which is not desirable for a VP, especially in the case of Trump's VP - his energy level would be higher than Trump's, the way he articulates things would be better than Trump, and he might be less prone to walking in lockstep with Trump's decisions
• Similar to first con - if he was VP, Trump's backup plan (if he died in office), would be someone who's never held political office
• I don't see Vivek appealing to suburban women who may have voted from Trump in 2016, but soured on him by 2020

those are all the cons you see for being Trump's vp? Maybe we should add having his followers turn on you and chanting for your death once the bridge goes up in flames.  :laughing:

Quote from: Jwb on Aug 27, 2023, 12:55 AMthose are all the cons you see for being Trump's vp? Maybe we should add having his followers turn on you and chanting for your death once the bridge goes up in flames.  :laughing:

Well, those were the cons for the success of the ticket, not Vivek's personal safety and well-being  :laughing:

I'm also not sure Trump will pick another "moderate" vp. Back in 16 he still needed to convince the Evangelicals. That's no longer true.  He'll probably pick a ride or die bitch like Kari Lake over another coward who "picks the constitution over Trump" like Pence. 

Trump campaign raises $7.1m following historic Georgia mugshot (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66632882?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA)

Quote from: Jwb on Aug 27, 2023, 12:48 AMI thought Haley made him look pretty bad during the foreign policy exchange and Pence got him with the on the job training line, but at the same time why the fuck are we watching a debate where the front runner isn't there, nobody is seriously willing to attack him other than Christie trying a half assed line of attacks that failed miserably.  Haley was able to navigate pushing back against Trump better than Christie did, but they all would still support him even if he is convicted of any the indictments, so yeah.  Very feeble pushback at that.

And nobody even bothered to go after DeSantis. It was all about the 3rd place guy vivek. To me, the debate really made the republican party look weak and empty absent Trump.

How do you think Haley did well when the main GOP position right now is "why are we sending billions to Ukraine?". She's completely at odds with that.

She looked silly yelling over Vivek, just like Trump looked silly when he was attempting to yell over Biden back in the 2020 debates.  If she really wanted to put Vivek in his place, she needed to offer an actual counterargument to what he was talking about...but instead she just strawmanned him about "giving Putin anything he wants" or some other unnuanced nonsense.  She sounded like a middle schooler who has never talked about foreign policy before, which is weird because that's supposed to be her "thing". 

Vivek's position on Ukraine is that you have all this money flowing over there with little oversight and no endgame in mind, so perhaps what we are doing might not be the absolute best approach to ending that conflict.  It struck me as strange that Haley had nothing to say to that.

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Aug 27, 2023, 01:52 PMTrump campaign raises $7.1m following historic Georgia mugshot (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66632882?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA)

Goes to show he's a horrible businessman. He waited until the 4th indictment which forced him to be booked, fingerprinted and mugshot instead of appearing at the courthouse. He should've insisted it on the 1st indictment and gotten the mugshot to upsell it.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Aug 27, 2023, 03:07 PMHow do you think Haley did well when the main GOP position right now is "why are we sending billions to Ukraine?". She's completely at odds with that.

She looked silly yelling over Vivek, just like Trump looked silly when he was attempting to yell over Biden back in the 2020 debates.  If she really wanted to put Vivek in his place, she needed to offer an actual counterargument to what he was talking about...but instead she just strawmanned him about "giving Putin anything he wants" or some other unnuanced nonsense.  She sounded like a middle schooler who has never talked about foreign policy before, which is weird because that's supposed to be her "thing". 

Vivek's position on Ukraine is that you have all this money flowing over there with little oversight and no endgame in mind, so perhaps what we are doing might not be the absolute best approach to ending that conflict.  It struck me as strange that Haley had nothing to say to that.

It's not that strange when you think about it and what she's known for and associated with.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Aug 27, 2023, 03:07 PMHow do you think Haley did well when the main GOP position right now is "why are we sending billions to Ukraine?". She's completely at odds with that.

She looked silly yelling over Vivek, just like Trump looked silly when he was attempting to yell over Biden back in the 2020 debates.  If she really wanted to put Vivek in his place, she needed to offer an actual counterargument to what he was talking about...but instead she just strawmanned him about "giving Putin anything he wants" or some other unnuanced nonsense.  She sounded like a middle schooler who has never talked about foreign policy before, which is weird because that's supposed to be her "thing". 

Vivek's position on Ukraine is that you have all this money flowing over there with little oversight and no endgame in mind, so perhaps what we are doing might not be the absolute best approach to ending that conflict.  It struck me as strange that Haley had nothing to say to that.

I mean she clearly had the crowd on her side.  You can say she looked silly talking over him but at the end it was the crowd who was drowning out the entire first half of his answer and then quieting down and not responding to the 2nd half.  It's pretty rough when you are trying to compliment Israel on a GOP stage and the crowd still isn't biting.

Like you seem to think she lost the exchange cause you don't agree with her. But that's not really important.  I happen to think that citing the money we send as being too expensive is a pretty short sighted approach. We have plenty of reasons to want Russia to falter in Ukraine.  And prior to Trump the GOP was very hawkish on Russia.  So her neo-con pov is actually more in line with the GOP than Vivek's isolationism. That is, if that isolationism is to include no longer funding Israel.  If you think they would go for that just because wars have become unpopular then i would say you don't understand zionism and the influence it has on American politics. 

Also, Trump got an optics L for seeming to bully Biden who was like a doddering old man that people felt bad for.  Literally nobody felt bad for Vivek. He spent the entire first portion of the debate inviting exactly that kind of energy. There's not a shadow of a doubt in my mind that that moment helped Haley and didn't hurt her in the slightest.

DeSantis $50M super PAC CLOSES after donors were spooked by his 'rookie s*** mistakes': Founder switches to Trump and tears into governor's campaign (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12465943/Ron-DeSantis-50-million-super-PAC-CLOSES-donors-spooked-rookie-s-mistakes.html)

(https://media.tenor.com/KGRLk_Dfub0AAAAC/scooby-doo-woof.gif)

Quote from: SGR on Aug 31, 2023, 06:38 PMDeSantis $50M super PAC CLOSES after donors were spooked by his 'rookie s*** mistakes': Founder switches to Trump and tears into governor's campaign (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12465943/Ron-DeSantis-50-million-super-PAC-CLOSES-donors-spooked-rookie-s-mistakes.html)

(https://i.postimg.cc/fbQBYT0G/Trump-Now-1-zps1op0ii3y.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

DeSantis has proven to be rather disappointing.  If he had even 10% of Vivek's fire and vigor, he'd be doing better.

I saw an interview with Vivek and he's not interested in being VP for Trump so if he doesn't beat him he's not going to be involved with him.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Sep 02, 2023, 07:32 PMI saw an interview with Vivek and he's not interested in being VP for Trump so if he doesn't beat him he's not going to be involved with him.

Did he rule out a cabinet position?

Quote from: SGR on Sep 02, 2023, 08:30 PMDid he rule out a cabinet position?

Yes basically.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4160226-ramaswamy-on-vp-slot-im-not-interested-in-a-different-position-in-the-government/

Quote from: DJChameleon on Sep 03, 2023, 09:19 AMYes basically.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4160226-ramaswamy-on-vp-slot-im-not-interested-in-a-different-position-in-the-government/

Fair enough - but makes me wonder, isn't that what they always say when running in a primary? Has anyone actually come out and said: "Yes, I'd be totally happy with a VP spot or a cabinet position" during a primary run? It makes me think their support and donors would dry up if they did.

Quote from: SGR on Sep 05, 2023, 04:12 PMFair enough - but makes me wonder, isn't that what they always say when running in a primary? Has anyone actually come out and said: "Yes, I'd be totally happy with a VP spot or a cabinet position" during a primary run? It makes me think their support and donors would dry up if they did.

Yeah nobody has come out and said they wanted the VP slot in a primary race.  Look at some of the stuff Kamala Harris said about Biden when she was running as POTUS during the 2020 Dem primary before she eventually accepted a VP offer from him later on.  It's a pretty common trajectory.

Quote from: SGR on Sep 05, 2023, 04:12 PMFair enough - but makes me wonder, isn't that what they always say when running in a primary? Has anyone actually come out and said: "Yes, I'd be totally happy with a VP spot or a cabinet position" during a primary run? It makes me think their support and donors would dry up if they did.

I feel like he's an all or nothing type of guy though. I also question his motives for even running. I wonder if he just wants publicity for his company or something.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Sep 05, 2023, 06:38 PMI feel like he's an all or nothing type of guy though. I also question his motives for even running. I wonder if he just wants publicity for his company or something.

Without knowing his motives though, we don't really know what 'all or nothing' even means in this context.

Quote from: SGR on Sep 05, 2023, 06:42 PMWithout knowing his motives though, we don't really know what 'all or nothing' even means in this context.

True it's all speculative. We shall see.

September 27th is the second debate.

Did anyone watch the second debate? I was a bit too busy and didn't get a chance. I'm going to check out the buzzwords and highlight reel soon from it.

Cliff notes if you will.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Sep 28, 2023, 09:37 PMDid anyone watch the second debate? I was a bit too busy and didn't get a chance. I'm going to check out the buzzwords and highlight reel soon from it.

Cliff notes if you will.

I did. Snoozefest. Chris Christie called Donald Trump 'Donald Duck', in one of the weakest and most cringe-worthy insults of late (Hillary Clinton came up with it). Vivek kinda shrank from the spotlight, though he had a controversial take on trans issues - Pence was rather forgettable, DeSantis was okay, maybe a bit better than his first outing, thankfully putting his foot down when the hosts tried to get them to do the 'vote the worst candidate off the island' thing. Haley had a strong night, with a quip towards Vivek: "Every time I hear you, I feel like I'm getting dumber" - I think she won the night, as I thought she did the first time. Tim Scott interjected too much and came off as weak and annoying (he was vying for more time, it didn't work).

Quote from: SGR on Sep 29, 2023, 12:14 AMI did. Snoozefest. Chris Christie called Donald Trump 'Donald Duck', in one of the weakest and most cringe-worthy insults of late (Hillary Clinton came up with it). Vivek kinda shrank from the spotlight, though he had a controversial take on trans issues - Pence was rather forgettable, DeSantis was okay, maybe a bit better than his first outing, thankfully putting his foot down when the hosts tried to get them to do the 'vote the worst candidate off the island' thing. Haley had a strong night, with a quip towards Vivek: "Every time I hear you, I feel like I'm getting dumber" - I think she won the night, as I thought she did the first time. Tim Scott interjected too much and came off as weak and annoying (he was vying for more time, it didn't work).

I saw some stupid media piece about right wingers thoughts on their performances before and how they did now.

Most that were for Haley after the first debate claimed they are now on team DeSantis.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Sep 29, 2023, 03:50 PMI saw some stupid media piece about right wingers thoughts on their performances before and how they did now.

Most that were for Haley after the first debate claimed they are now on team DeSantis.

Was there a little 'survey funded by Team DeSantis for America' at the bottom of the article?

Quote from: SGR on Sep 29, 2023, 10:51 PMWas there a little 'survey funded by Team DeSantis for America' at the bottom of the article?

It was a television segment on one of those news channels.

Vivek is a pussy.

Quote from: Jwb on Sep 30, 2023, 03:18 AMVivek is a pussy.

Lulz. Haley secretly loves him.

(https://scontent-atl3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/384690249_10233149961598216_3014163492363377112_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=6a0516&_nc_ohc=W2NYYPSLGIMAX84i7Cq&_nc_ht=scontent-atl3-2.xx&oh=00_AfBGxqDvH3nqZDI3NzapXh4r83amDcjyKwyUEir1SlUPDw&oe=651ED3AC)

Idgaf lol.  You think I'm team Haley or something? That bitch has eyes that look like theyre being propped open by the scientists from A Clockwork Orange. Every time they pan to her i can't tell if she's been chewing Adderall or if there are shapeshifting entities that are holding back her eyelids for some apparent symbolic reason.

Wikipedia defines the Inflation Reduction Act:-

"The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) is a landmark United States federal law which aims to curb inflation by possibly reducing the federal government budget deficit, lowering prescription drug prices, and investing into domestic energy production while promoting clean energy."

Nikki Haley's take on it:-

QuoteFormer South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who is running for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, rebuked the Inflation Reduction Act on its anniversary as President Joe Biden's "communist manifesto."

"The IRA is a communist manifesto filled with tax hikes and green subsidies that benefit China and make America more dependent on Beijing," Haley wrote in a statement Wednesday. "While Joe Biden cozies up to Xi Jinping, American families are footing the bill for all this spending. As president, I will repeal Biden's green energy handouts and make sure Americans are not dependent on China for vital goods."

= the day I lost any respect for Nikki Haley.
AFAIK, the Act introduces the concept that the government can negotiate medicine prices with the pharmaceutical companies, something which, depite being Big Pharma's biggest customer, it has not yet been allowed to do. Nikki Haley calls this good old price haggling "communist" because it could erode the run-away profits of her Big Pharma donor buddies. That's disgraceful.   

Quote from: Jwb on Oct 02, 2023, 02:52 AMIdgaf lol.  You think I'm team Haley or something? That bitch has eyes that look like theyre being propped open by the scientists from A Clockwork Orange. Every time they pan to her i can't tell if she's been chewing Adderall or if there are shapeshifting entities that are holding back her eyelids for some apparent symbolic reason.

Yeah she always looks like she's buggin' out on something.  It's kinda creepy.

Trump shares bizarre court sketch of him sitting next to Jesus at fraud trial (https://nypost.com/2023/10/03/trump-shares-court-sketch-of-him-sitting-next-to-jesus/)

Bing. Bong. Bong. Bing.

Bing... bong... bong... bing, bing, bing...




Trump and Son - The Nancy Episodes...

Next debate is November 8th in Miami and so far only three candidates have qualified to be in it.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/us/politics/debate-republican-candidates-qualify.html

Lol I guess Chris Christie couldn't hack it.

Nope which is sad. He brings the comic relief. He's the only one that likes to shit talk Trump. It will be sad if he doesn't make it in time. I don't know if they have a cut off time or deadline before they can qualify or get disqualified.

Christie's 'comic relief' is usually because his canned jokes are so lame, you can't help but laugh:


(https://media4.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExZmZrNmN4eGFqZGp0eTRoeXNoeXVkZTJvMGVmeTl4Y3RtMmQ2ajdrMiZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/ueKysdAthOwtq/giphy.gif)

Christie doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of becoming president. Even Republicans don't like him. Makes sense to get him off the stage to give candidates who have a more serious chance some airtime.

Makes sense to just cancel the rest of the debates if Trump isn't going to be there tbh.

We tried it without Trump and it's just demonstrably not worth watching.

Quote from: Jwb on Oct 23, 2023, 08:55 PMMakes sense to just cancel the rest of the debates if Trump isn't going to be there tbh.

We tried it without Trump and it's just demonstrably not worth watching.

Yeah I don't disagree, they've been rather boring. On the other hand, if we get only 4 or 5 candidates on the stage, maybe we could actually get some entertaining back and forths. In all honesty though, the format of these stupid debates (and they are stupid) are more geared toward getting soundbites and gotchas instead of being conducive to well reasoned and thoughtful explanations. Legit, if you had someone like Joe Rogan or Lex Fridman moderating a discussion between 3 or 4 of these candidates, without strict time limits on responses, and you just let the candidates engage with each other, it'd be a lot more informative (and probably a lot more entertaining).

Yeah but the problem with wittling it down to just 4 or 5 of them is that the front runner still isn't there.  And he's the presumptive nominee.  So what are people even watching for? More Vivek vs Haley? I think I'll pass lol.

Quote from: Jwb on Oct 24, 2023, 12:08 AMYeah but the problem with wittling it down to just 4 or 5 of them is that the front runner still isn't there.  And he's the presumptive nominee.  So what are people even watching for? More Vivek vs Haley? I think I'll pass lol.

People are watching to see who they might maybe want to vote for if they don't vote for Trump. Outside of the die hard cult driving Trumpers.

 :laughing:

Quote from: SGR on Oct 24, 2023, 08:57 PM

 :laughing:

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Quote from: DJChameleon on Oct 24, 2023, 01:29 AMPeople are watching to see who they might maybe want to vote for if they don't vote for Trump.

^ Yep, this is a valid idea imo, though I imagine that for all the "people ... watching", there were many more who weren't. Personally, I never watch that kind of stuff for any party in any country, relying instead on the highlights that make the headlines. What's useful, though, is to have on record the performance and ideas of all these "also ran" candidates. That's because Trump has several obstacles* to overcome before he makes it to Presidential Candidate, and if he falls at any one hurdle, these "also rans" will suddenly become significant, rather in the way that outsider Mike Johnson has suddenly become an important figure in the GOP after the spectacular defeats of more familiar "front runner" types.

* Obstacles for Trump:-
(i) like Biden, he has to avoid any catastrophic health crisis between now and the 2024 election
(ii) ditto, avoid the onset of senility to such an extent that it goes beyond the current half-amusing gaffes that the partisan media outlets so love
(iii) he has to actually get his name on the ballot, which may not happen if the case based on the 14th Amendment is taken seriously
(iv) if convicted in any of the 91(?) indictments he's currently facing, he's got to persuade electors, GOP, legal scholars that he's still a potential president.

Pro-Trumpers don't seem to acknowledge these problems, and they may find they are caught out, unprepared, furthur down the campaign line. Dems as well don't seem to be doing much to bolster the popularity of a Biden replacement, so perhaps that's campaign policy all round: act like your guy is invincible. I just hope the Dems, behind the scenes, have a Plan B, where B stands for "Not Biden".   

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Oct 31, 2023, 04:08 PM^ Yep, this is a valid idea imo, though I imagine that for all the "people ... watching", there were many more who weren't. Personally, I never watch that kind of stuff for any party in any country, relying instead on the highlights that make the headlines. What's useful, though, is to have on record the performance and ideas of all these "also ran" candidates. That's because Trump has several obstacles* to overcome before he makes it to Presidential Candidate, and if he falls at any one hurdle, these "also rans" will suddenly become significant, rather in the way that outsider Mike Johnson has suddenly become an important figure in the GOP after the spectacular defeats of more familiar "front runner" types.

* Obstacles for Trump:-
(i) like Biden, he has to avoid any catastrophic health crisis between now and the 2024 election
(ii) ditto, avoid the onset of senility to such an extent that it goes beyond the current half-amusing gaffes that the partisan media outlets so love
(iii) he has to actually get his name on the ballot, which may not happen if the case based on the 14th Amendment is taken seriously
(iv) if convicted in any of the 91(?) indictments he's currently facing, he's got to persuade electors, GOP, legal scholars that he's still a potential president.

Pro-Trumpers don't seem to acknowledge these problems, and they may find they are caught out, unprepared, furthur down the campaign line. Dems as well don't seem to be doing much to bolster the popularity of a Biden replacement, so perhaps that's campaign policy all round: act like your guy is invincible. I just hope the Dems, behind the scenes, have a Plan B, where B stands for "Not Biden".   

Isn't Plan B technically Harris, that's all they are waiting on. If Biden has something preventing him from running they will just go with Harris. I hate the corporate Democrats and how they just go along to get along using the same ole system that they have had in place for years.

Looks like Nikki Haley is gaining some ground in the polls...

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Nov 01, 2023, 08:58 PMLooks like Nikki Haley is gaining some ground in the polls...

It's because she doesn't hide the heels she wears

^ Haha! Alongside DeSantis and Trump, she looks young and attractive, plus she's an unprincipled, disingenious opportunist, so she has that going for her too. If she can harness the power of Pence's recently freed-up 2% of the voter share, she could ride that tsunami all the way to the White House!!

Quote from: DJChameleon on Nov 01, 2023, 08:13 AMIsn't Plan B technically Harris, that's all they are waiting on. If Biden has something preventing him from running they will just go with Harris.

^ yes, I assume that K Harris is their Plan B, DJ, although recently a new presidential candidate has declared himself: spoiler because this is the wrong thread to put it in:-

Spoiler

List of Democratic candidates
Joe Biden (D), incumbent president of the United States, announced he would run for re-election on April 25, 2023.[20]
Dean Phillips (D), a U.S. representative from Minnesota, announced his candidacy on October 26, 2023.[36]
Cenk Uygur (D), a media commentator and founder of The Young Turks, announced his candidacy on October 12, 2023. At the time of the announcement, it was not clear that Uygur met the natural born citizen requirement in Article II, Section 1, of the United States Constitution.[7]
Marianne Williamson (D), 2020 presidential candidate and author, announced her candidacy on February 23, 2023.[30]

[close]

QuoteI hate the corporate Democrats and how they just go along to get along using the same ole system that they have had in place for years.

^ If by this you mean that the Dems are taking a complacent attitude when it comes to "selling" their leaders to the public, I'd agee with you. K Harris did well back in her Senate days, but she falls short in the charm department, I fear. She should be out there, opening a refuge for homeless puppies or stuff like that, to crank up her popularity a bit, imo. 

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Nov 02, 2023, 02:13 PM^ yes, I assume that K Harris is their Plan B, DJ, although recently a new presidential candidate has declared himself: spoiler because this is the wrong thread to put it in:-

Spoiler

List of Democratic candidates
Joe Biden (D), incumbent president of the United States, announced he would run for re-election on April 25, 2023.[20]
Dean Phillips (D), a U.S. representative from Minnesota, announced his candidacy on October 26, 2023.[36]
Cenk Uygur (D), a media commentator and founder of The Young Turks, announced his candidacy on October 12, 2023. At the time of the announcement, it was not clear that Uygur met the natural born citizen requirement in Article II, Section 1, of the United States Constitution.[7]
Marianne Williamson (D), 2020 presidential candidate and author, announced her candidacy on February 23, 2023.[30]

[close]

The thing is the Democratic caucaus is not going to put support behind any of the other candidates attempting to run. Yeah I completely forgot about Cenk and I watch TYT. He says he's only running as like a placeholder because someone needs to run against Biden he thinks, well someone more progressive.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Nov 02, 2023, 02:13 PM^ If by this you mean that the Dems are taking a complacent attitude when it comes to "selling" their leaders to the public, I'd agee with you. K Harris did well back in her Senate days, but she falls short in the charm department, I fear. She should be out there, opening a refuge for homeless puppies or stuff like that, to crank up her popularity a bit, imo. 

I partly meant that but I also meant that it's tradition for the Democratic causcaus to get behind the incumbent and only push for them so they can win a re-election. They aren't going to just pivot to someone else no matter how good the candidate is.

Trump gears up for a rally in Hialeah, Florida, one of the most Latino cities in the country (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/trumps-rally-hialeah-one-hispanic-cities-country-rcna123555)

QuoteTrump is again ditching the Republican debate in Miami and going to Hialeah, a Republican bastion in Miami-Dade County that's over 95% Hispanic — and where he has ample support.

5 Republicans qualify for third 2024 presidential debate (https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/06/politics/third-republican-debate-miami-lineup/index.html)

Quote from: DJChameleon on Nov 01, 2023, 08:13 AMIsn't Plan B technically Harris, that's all they are waiting on. If Biden has something preventing him from running they will just go with Harris. I hate the corporate Democrats and how they just go along to get along using the same ole system that they have had in place for years.

That's gotta be the worst backup plan of all time. Dems might as well just give Republicans the presidency now in that case. Biden's brain is fried, and yet he's still got better favorability than Harris.

Some have been floating the idea of Newsom, but I can't imagine that happening - a white man stealing the job from a black woman who's the current 'heir apparent' wouldn't play well optically for the Dems.

If they could convince her to run, Michelle Obama would be the best bet. She'd get the voters out in droves on election day. The media would give her all kinds of airtime and plenty of softball interviews and questions in the run-up to the election too. I doubt she's willing to do it though. 

So with RFK Jr. running independently, which party do we think he'll end up siphoning more votes from?

Quote from: SGR on Nov 07, 2023, 07:36 PMSo with RFK Jr. running independently, which party do we think he'll end up siphoning more votes from?

Republicans most likely because the Dems have done a good job of painting him as a racist.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Nov 07, 2023, 11:26 PMRepublicans most likely because the Dems have done a good job of painting him as a racist.

A racist? I haven't heard that one. I've heard the anti-vax one though.

I don't think Harris is the back up plan.  Except in the sense that if he dies in office she would inherit power.  I do not see them actually trying to run her in a presidential campaign.  I would assume if they were going to try to replace Biden they would have a primary. The time for that is pretty much up.  No matter how much people on the Dem side panic in the last hour, it seems like they're stuck with Biden regardless.

Quote from: SGR on Nov 07, 2023, 07:36 PMSo with RFK Jr. running independently, which party do we think he'll end up siphoning more votes from?

i've heard the polling now has him taking slightly more from Trump than Biden. 

RFK Jr. is showing up in the mid 20 percentiles now in a lot of major polls...and we're still a year out from election. He's doing way better than Perot did back in the 90's as a point of comparison, and that guy never got more than 19% despite being the most effective 3rd party candidate in American history. He has a legitimate shot at winning depending on what happens over the next half year or so.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Nov 08, 2023, 03:59 AMRFK Jr. is showing up in the mid 20 percentiles now in a lot of major polls...and we're still a year out from election. He's doing way better than Perot did back in the 90's as a point of comparison, and that guy never got more than 19% despite being the most effective 3rd party candidate in American history. He has a legitimate shot at winning depending on what happens over the next half year or so.

This would unironically be the funniest outcome. While the left and right are bitching and moaning at each other, the rug gets pulled out from under them.

The left: "He's an anti-vaxxer!"

The right: "He's a gun grabber!"

(https://media4.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExeHJkaHA4dTdtZ2trbjB2NXI1bTJnbnJscmQ3ZTY2bTlrcGE0eWdtaCZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/SSYYIVAPeNrm4x36y9/giphy.gif)

Quote from: Jwb on Nov 08, 2023, 01:46 AMi've heard the polling now has him taking slightly more from Trump than Biden. 

Are those the same pollsters that have Trump leading in battleground states over Biden? Just curious.

I don't know.  I think the poll i heard had biden up by 1 point nation wide without RFK and his lead grows to 4 points when you factor RFK in. Then if you add in Cornel West Bidens lead skeins shrinks back to 1%. But i didn't look at the state by state breakdown.

It did have both RFK and Cornel polling way higher than i expect they will get in the actual election.  They had RFK at life 19 percent with cornel in the race and 22 percent without him.  That seems unlikely to me.

Quote from: Jwb on Nov 08, 2023, 02:36 PMI don't know.  I think the poll i heard had biden up by 1 point nation wide without RFK and his lead grows to 4 points when you factor RFK in. Then if you add in Cornel West Bidens lead skeins shrinks back to 1%. But i didn't look at the state by state breakdown.

It did have both RFK and Cornel polling way higher than i expect they will get in the actual election.  They had RFK at life 19 percent with cornel in the race and 22 percent without him.  That seems unlikely to me.

Yeah I saw that 22% for RFK in one (or maybe more) polls too. There's no shot that's representative of what share of the vote he'll get in the general. I'd be absolutely stunned.

I tend to agree, but this is shaping up to be a pretty unusual election so i don't rule it out necessarily. Not to say i see him getting 22% but even if he got half of that, that would be pretty impressive.   It's certainly not normal to not only have the same exact match up as the last election but also with both candidates being as wounded as they are...Biden because of age and Trump because of his legal issues as well as just his just polarizing presence in general.  I'm expecting people taking a look at rfk in the polls are probably just frustrated with the options on the table but will ultimately fall in line with the two party dynamic once it comes time for the actual election. But who knows.

Quote from: Jwb on Nov 08, 2023, 03:47 PMI tend to agree, but this is shaping up to be a pretty unusual election so i don't rule it out necessarily. Not to say i see him getting 22% but even if he got half of that, that would be pretty impressive.   It's certainly not normal to not only have the same exact match up as the last election but also with both candidates being as wounded as they are...Biden because of age and Trump because of his legal issues as well as just his just polarizing presence in general.  I'm expecting people taking a look at rfk in the polls are probably just frustrated with the options on the table but will ultimately fall in line with the two party dynamic once it comes time for the actual election. But who knows.

Absolutely it would be impressive. If he gets those kind of numbers, he has the chance to be kingmaker. In other words, dropping out and endorsing Trump or Biden in return for something...maybe an AG appointment? Not sure.

In other polls that are difficult to believe, this one claims that Trump is actually leading Biden among black men and voters aged  < 35.

President TRAILS Trump by four points nationwide and among black men, young and independent voters - and just 25% think he has the 'stamina' to run the country (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12723093/Trump-Biden-CNN-poll-stamina-world-leader.html)

QuoteThe president has lost support since 2020 among a number of different voting groups.

Voters aged under 35 now back Trump by 48 percent to 47 percent for Biden.

The votes of black men have shifted to Trump, with him now garnering 49 percent support to Biden's 46 percent.

In 2020 Biden won the votes of black men by 34 points.

You know things are bad when swing-state voters actually want the Insurrectionist-In-Chief back over the last few years with Biden.  That's a pretty pathetic showing for a party that's supposed to be all about competent governance.  And they're so abysmally incompetent that they think they can coast on being pro-abortion because they literally have no idea what to do about any other issue.

I agree with Jwb that this is a really strange election.  You have an extremely unpopular incumbent vs a guy with 91 indictments who is also one of the most polarizing people of the last half century. If a 3rd party candidate was going to try to make a big play, they could wait a 100 years and never find a better opportunity to win.

Quote from: SGR on Nov 07, 2023, 11:34 PMA racist? I haven't heard that one. I've heard the anti-vax one though.

If anyone needs to watch the GOP debate

https://rumble.com/v3u4fks-rnc-third-republican-presidential-primary-debate.html

Jesus Christ, why does Chris Christie suddenly look so old?

Cause he runs his campaign from McDonalds and it shows.  He looks physically ill - probably needs to see a doctor.

Debate was kinda interesting, albeit typical.  I lol'd when Vivek called out the moderators at the start. He made a good point later on about men taking greater responsibility in regards to the pro-life / pro-choice debate.

Haley was pretty typical the whole time, though she made a few good points about debt culpability with both parties and how we have hundreds of millions in Covid-19 fraud that should be going back into regular people's pockets but the IRS targets middle class people and the poor.

Overall I don't think the debate going to change anyone's mind about whatever they were thinking before they watched it.  Trump is still in the lead, Biden's half comatose and RFK Jr. is having a good laugh because he's polling better than all the non-Trump GOP candidates combined.

The most memorable part of the debate was when Vivek said something along the lines of: "We don't need Dick Cheney in three inch heels as president - and we've got two of them on this stage!"  :laughing:  :laughing:

Every time the camera zoomed in on Desantis, you could see how nervous he looked.

Nikki Haley vows to abolish anonymous social media accounts: 'It's a national security threat' (https://wpde.com/news/nation-world/nikki-haley-vows-to-abolish-anonymous-social-media-accounts-its-a-national-security-threat-tik-tok-twitter-x-facebook-instagram-republican-presidential-candidate-hawley-hochul)

Nikki Haley is a complete fucking idiot.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Nov 09, 2023, 06:25 AMCause he runs his campaign from McDonalds and it shows.  He looks physically ill - probably needs to see a doctor.

Debate was kinda interesting, albeit typical.  I lol'd when Vivek called out the moderators at the start. He made a good point later on about men taking greater responsibility in regards to the pro-life / pro-choice debate.

Haley was pretty typical the whole time, though she made a few good points about debt culpability with both parties and how we have hundreds of millions in Covid-19 fraud that should be going back into regular people's pockets but the IRS targets middle class people and the poor.

Overall I don't think the debate going to change anyone's mind about whatever they were thinking before they watched it.  Trump is still in the lead, Biden's half comatose and RFK Jr. is having a good laugh because he's polling better than all the non-Trump GOP candidates combined.

Trump lives off of McDonald's and he doesn't look as bad. So no it's definitely something else. I will NOT tolerate Mickey Ds slander sir.

Vivek making that point is so fucking stupid. Men don't need to be anywhere near the pro choice/pro life debate. When men can start delivering babies from their own bodies then they can jump in on the debate until then STFU.

The IRS is recouping the covid relief money from everyone that scammed for it. The big corporations will get away with it though because they always do. The same way they get away with paying zero dollars in tax money because of loopholes.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Nov 16, 2023, 07:21 PMTrump lives off of McDonald's and he doesn't look as bad. So no it's definitely something else. I will NOT tolerate Mickey Ds slander sir.

Vivek making that point is so fucking stupid. Men don't need to be anywhere near the pro choice/pro life debate. When men can start delivering babies from their own bodies then they can jump in on the debate until then STFU.

The IRS is recouping the covid relief money from everyone that scammed for it. The big corporations will get away with it though because they always do. The same way they get away with paying zero dollars in tax money because of loopholes.

1. Burger King then.

2. The point Vivek made was that men should be taking responsibility for their actions and that if they don't want kids (doubly so if she doesn't want them either or wants to take on that risk) then men should be paying for their own contraceptives and all that.  Pretty reasonable opinion.

3. The IRS is more likely to show up at my house with a gun than me getting back any kind of Covid-related money that got somehow scammed from the public.  And that's pretty sad.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Nov 17, 2023, 05:31 AM1. Burger King then.

2. The point Vivek made was that men should be taking responsibility for their actions and that if they don't want kids (doubly so if she doesn't want them either or wants to take on that risk) then men should be paying for their own contraceptives and all that.  Pretty reasonable opinion.

3. The IRS is more likely to show up at my house with a gun than me getting back any kind of Covid-related money that got somehow scammed from the public.  And that's pretty sad.

1. Fine slander Burger King I like em but I'm fine with people shit talking BK.

2. Oh okay I didn't see the debate so I didn't know the context but I agree.

3. That's not true they have already gotten back some of them of the money and they have also arrested some of the bigger time scammers regardless of what you think about them not being able to recoup the funds. Its the IRS. They WILL get their money or punish people. Just like the saying goes only two things guaranteed in life is death and taxes.

Donald Trump to remain on Colorado primary ballot after judge dismisses lawsuit (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67446313?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA)

QuoteA judge in Colorado has rejected an attempt to bar former President Donald Trump from the state's 2024 Republican presidential primary.

It ends a landmark trial over a lawsuit that argued Mr Trump's actions leading up to the 2021 Capitol riot render him ineligible to hold office again.

Similar challenges, based on a US Civil War-era constitutional amendment, have also failed in three other states.

QuoteAccording to a news release from the RNC, the next debate will take place on Wednesday, Dec. 6 from 7-9 p.m. Central time.

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Nov 18, 2023, 11:48 AMDonald Trump to remain on Colorado primary ballot after judge dismisses lawsuit (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67446313?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA)

Well golly gee, I guess he's not an insurrectionist after all. Checkmate Dems.  8)

It would be hilarious if he ends up having to fight this exact same suit in all 50 states eventually though. Surely at least one state hates him enough to go through with it.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Nov 18, 2023, 05:01 PMWell golly gee, I guess he's not an insurrectionist after all. Checkmate Dems.  8)

^ Actually, you are wrong on both counts, Nimbly: firstly, he is an insurectionist, and secondly, it's not checkmate for the Dems. Take a look at the bolded from Psy-Fi's link:-

QuoteMs Wallace [= Colorado judge] did find, however, that Mr Trump "engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump's speech".

The ruling is the latest setback for efforts to disqualify Mr Trump from the Republican primary election.

Similar lawsuits in New Hampshire, Minnesota and Michigan have already failed.

In a statement issued after the ruling, the left-leaning Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington - which filed the Colorado lawsuit - said it would be filing an appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court shortly.

The group applauded Ms Wallace's finding that Mr Trump had engaged in insurrection on 6 January.

"We are proud to have brought this historic case and know we are right on the facts and right on the law," the group said. "Today was not the end of this effort, but another step along the way."

of course not an ideal result for the Dems, but notice: (i) a judge has now made a court ruling, labelling Trump as an insurrectionist and (ii) he can stay on the ballot because of some rather hair-splitting reading of the 14th ammendment. That's why the CREW lawyers plan to continue the fight.

These are the fine-readings of the 14th ammendment that the judge says lets Trump stay on the ballot:-

i) that the oath "to support and defend the constitution" (14th ammendment) is NOT the same as the oath "to preserve, protect and defend the constituion", which is what the President takes. 
ii) The judge found that, as president, Trump was not "an officer of the United States" who could be disqualified under the amendment.

To some extent, both of those points look pretty weak, so we'll see if they are still maintained under the appeals process. TBH, in the court of public opinion, it wouldn't look good if Trump was struck off the ballot, but then, on the other hand, it's not good to have the GOP supporting an insurrectionist who has hinted, claimed or promised to:-

- execute General Milley for treason
- terminate parts of the constitution
- "come after" and imprison his political opponents

If we add on to that his determination to stay in power regardless of electoral results, we have the full-on, fascist autocrat agenda. 

First off, I was mocking the article because after all that noise, they can't actually commit to taking him off the ballot in any state that similar suits have been tried in so far because *insert excuses here*.

Also, it seems a little funny to me that you mock the Biden family investigations in other discussions we've had (which there is merit to despite your protestations - I'd like to see you try digging through 20 shell companies and all the email aliases that Biden used while serving office before) but seem so keen on these kinds of cases even when they fail miserably to produce any kind of actual result. 

Remember when Trump challenged the election in court in multiple states and got slapped down over and over again? This is the Democrat goose chase edition of that.  If they had any common sense they'd quit while they're ahead and focus time, money and energy on other avenues more likely to stick to him.

If Trump is an actual insurrectionist, he shouldn't be on any ballot in any state, period.  The fact that he continues to be undermines any platitudes they want to put out there.

My apologies if I  didn't pick up on the mocking part, Nimbly. I just didn't see it.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Nov 21, 2023, 04:26 PMAlso, it seems a little funny to me that you mock the Biden family investigations in other discussions we've had (which there is merit to despite your protestations - I'd like to see you try digging through 20 shell companies and all the email aliases that Biden used while serving office before) but seem so keen on these kinds of cases even when they fail miserably to produce any kind of actual result.

Well, some elements of the House Oversight Committee's investigation seem kind of laughable to me, like when one of the first witnesses that the Republicans called said there was insufficient evidence of any wrongdoing by Joe Biden. I also feel that there should be a clearer division between what Hunter B did and what his dad did. What I've put in bold, above is an example of what I imagine is an unintentional blurring of the two Bidens, H and J. Anyway, the real situation is detailed in this article, for anyone who is curious :-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/08/17/how-republicans-overhype-findings-their-hunter-biden-probe/

For anyone less curious, some key clarifications are:

i) not all the companies were shell companies,some were legit businesses
ii) None were opened by Joe Biden
iii) Hunter Biden has never held public office

Yes, I have quite a lot of enthusiasm for a courtcase that would block an insurrectionist from running for President, but I am happy to acknowledge that it isn't a particularly good look for Dems to be hobbling a horse before the race starts. I think I mentioned that in my previous post.

QuoteRemember when Trump challenged the election in court in multiple states and got slapped down over and over again? This is the Democrat goose chase edition of that.  If they had any common sense they'd quit while they're ahead and focus time, money and energy on other avenues more likely to stick to him.

^ So, yeah, I can pretty much agree with this Nimbly, and I like your comparison between the court cases from both sides being brought by over-zealous lawyers who perhaps let too much wishful thinking seep into their briefs :yikes:

QuoteIf Trump is an actual insurrectionist, he shouldn't be on any ballot in any state, period.  The fact that he continues to be undermines any platitudes they want to put out there.

Well, this Colorado court plainly says that he is, but doesn't follow through in the way that you suggest.

It seems like the Colorado judge is following what has become a regular pattern of behaviour regarding Trump, from the Mueller Report, to the impeachments, to the gag orders; "This guy is guilty but I'm not going to stick my neck out so far as to do anything about it" That, btw, is more a criticism of the people in charge of applying the legal checks-and-balances systems, than of your man Trump.

Any judge that banned him from a state ballot would get hailed as a hero by everyone except the MAGA types. If they are that scared to push the rule of law, then they and the Biden administration can be quiet about democracy cause they clearly don't actually believe it means anything.  Like their Republican frenemies, they just want to advance the interests of some company or rich person and keep the population distracted while they see what they can get away with elsewhere.

@Lisnaholic, out of curiosity, what do you consider 'insurrection' to mean?

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Nov 21, 2023, 04:26 PMAlso, it seems a little funny to me that you mock the Biden family investigations in other discussions we've had (which there is merit to despite your protestations - I'd like to see you try digging through 20 shell companies and all the email aliases that Biden used while serving office before) but seem so keen on these kinds of cases even when they fail miserably to produce any kind of actual result. 

There is nothing funny about that when the Biden family investigations was filled with a whole bunch of nothing burger information but go ahead and believe there is more to it than what's going on in reality.  :laughing:

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Nov 21, 2023, 07:23 PMAny judge that banned him from a state ballot would get hailed as a hero by everyone except the MAGA types. If they are that scared to push the rule of law, then they and the Biden administration can be quiet about democracy cause they clearly don't actually believe it means anything.  Like their Republican frenemies, they just want to advance the interests of some company or rich person and keep the population distracted while they see what they can get away with elsewhere.

I mean I'd be scared to push that rule of law too if I knew the people I was pissing off included Nazis, white collar criminals, gun nuts, and all the other lovely walks of life that make up the Trump fan club.  :shycouch:

Quote from: Mrs. Waffles on Nov 21, 2023, 08:47 PMI mean I'd be scared to push that rule of law too if I knew the people I was pissing off included Nazis, white collar criminals, gun nuts, and all the other lovely walks of life that make up the Trump fan club.  :shycouch:

Quote from: DJChameleon on Nov 21, 2023, 08:13 PMThere is nothing funny about that when the Biden family investigations was filled with a whole bunch of nothing burger information but go ahead and believe there is more to it than what's going on in reality.  :laughing:

Surrrreeee. And Trump had a perfect phone call with Zelensky.  Nothing to see here! :laughing:

Quote from: SGR on Nov 21, 2023, 07:31 PM@Lisnaholic, out of curiosity, what do you consider 'insurrection' to mean?

Thanks for the question, SGR :thumb:

To me, like many words, it has more than one use:-

(i) is what we read in history books and (I suspect) think of when we usually hear the word: an armed militia taking over territory by force and announcing a new government.
...but there is a narrower legal definition:-
(ii) taking over government buildings, stopping lawful governmental processes from happening.

What happened at the Capital on Jan 6, together with the fake electors scheme, was a type (ii) insurrection imo. Not as dramatic or long-term thought out as type (i), but "insurrection" is what it's now being called, by a Colorado judge among others, of which group I am happy to become a member, I'm afraid. Like a failed bank robbery, or a hostage situation that is resolved in a few hours, just because it didn't work doesn't uncriminalize it, so the legal label stays: insurrection. To me, it's useful because I think more attention should be paid to the historically terrible things that Trump has done or proposed regarding US democracy.
It worries me when the 2024 election is presented as a choice between which senile old gaff-machine is the least embarrassing. Earlier today I posted about Trump's "full-on fascist autocrat agenda" and I'm hoping voters will be aware of that in 2024.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Nov 21, 2023, 07:23 PMAny judge that banned him from a state ballot would get hailed as a hero by everyone except the MAGA types. If they are that scared to push the rule of law, then they and the Biden administration can be quiet about democracy cause they clearly don't actually believe it means anything.  Like their Republican frenemies, they just want to advance the interests of some company or rich person and keep the population distracted while they see what they can get away with elsewhere.

Had to read this about 3 times before it registered: I don't disagree with you, Nimbly!

Quote from: Mrs. Waffles on Nov 21, 2023, 08:47 PMI mean I'd be scared to push that rule of law too if I knew the people I was pissing off included Nazis, white collar criminals, gun nuts, and all the other lovely walks of life that make up the Trump fan club.  :shycouch:

^ Absolutely times two on this, Mrs. Waffles. In fact, it's already been reported that during the vote to indict Trump following his 2nd impeachment, Republican senators were advising each other, "Think of your family: don't vote to indict."

I don't like to appear dramatic or divisive, but this is what I see happening in the US:-

 (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225682908/figure/fig1/AS:393836183474182@1470909271720/The-yin-yang-symbol-tajitu.png)

Not a harmonious balance, but a struggle for survival before you get eaten, with law and democracy on one side, and Trump, autocracy and threats of violence on the other. Already, on the ground, the DOJ and judges are losing: not protecting election workers sufficiently, not gagging Trump from making statements that will effect witnesses and jurors both, and not pushing forward Trump's cases so that they are concluded before the election.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Nov 21, 2023, 07:23 PMAny judge that banned him from a state ballot would get hailed as a hero by everyone except the MAGA types. If they are that scared to push the rule of law, then they and the Biden administration can be quiet about democracy cause they clearly don't actually believe it means anything.  Like their Republican frenemies, they just want to advance the interests of some company or rich person and keep the population distracted while they see what they can get away with elsewhere.

You are just assuming the judge's intentions though.  She's sworn to uphold the constitution, so if her genuine opinion is that the phrase officers of the United States doesn't apply to the president because that office isn't listed specifically, then ruling as she did despite thinking Trump is in fact a insurrectionist would actually be upholding her oath to the constitution, despite her personal biases.

We literally have nothing to go on to assume her motives so your charge here seems baseless. If she had decided to keep him off the ballot anyway out of some sense of the greater good, despite it contradicting her reading of the law, that would actually be a violation of her oath and the exact opposite of how rule of law is actually supposedv to work in a democracy.

Quote from: Jwb on Nov 22, 2023, 03:44 AMYou are just assuming the judge's intentions though.  She's sworn to uphold the constitution, so if her genuine opinion is that the phrase officers of the United States doesn't apply to the president because that office isn't listed specifically, then ruling as she did despite thinking Trump is in fact a insurrectionist would actually be upholding her oath to the constitution, despite her personal biases.

We literally have nothing to go on to assume her motives so your charge here seems baseless. If she had decided to keep him off the ballot anyway out of some sense of the greater good, despite it contradicting her reading of the law, that would actually be a violation of her oath and the exact opposite of how rule of law is actually supposedv to work in a democracy.

Why would the rule of law exempt the president from laws that would even apply to senators?  I'm not even mad about it - I just don't think it makes any sense.  If her ruling is the final word on it, then her commentary on what she "personally" feels is pointless...and on top of that not credible.

Judge Dismisses Rhode Island Trump Ballot Case (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-dismisses-rhode-island-trump-ballot-case/ar-AA1kFeOT)

QuoteThe Rhode Island judge dismissed the case challenging Trump's ballot eligibility, citing a recent 1st Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in a similar case in New Hampshire

^ The dismissal of this case adds to the drip, drip of failures so far for the notion that Trump should be banned from ballots. But the Rhode Island case is being dismissed because of the (lack of) standing of the guy bringing the case -  so I don't think it's a decision with much weight. Isn't the judge saying, "if somebody more appropriate brings the case, I would consider it" ?

The decision to watch for is the Colorado Supreme Court one, I think.

If Trump makes it on the ballot. He's winning.

My own guess is that he'll win the GOP primary but lose the general election, like he did in 2020. For the Primary, the Republican voters have a bunch of hardcore election-deniers and Trump enablers, which is why he's so far ahead in those GOP candidate polls.

In the wider context of the general election, I think that block of enthusiasts for Trump will be watered down by the number of common sense voters. I have faith in the electorate to grasp what's on the ballot, and what a second Trump term would do to American democracy. In fact, I think the GOP does too, which is why they are, even as we speak, chipping away at the election process, at the local level, I believe. It's in expectation of being defeated at the ballot box again. (See 2020.) 

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Nov 29, 2023, 01:25 PMMy own guess is that he'll win the GOP primary but lose the general election, like he did in 2020. For the Primary, the Republican voters have a bunch of hardcore election-deniers and Trump enablers, which is why he's so far ahead in those GOP candidate polls.

In the wider context of the general election, I think that block of enthusiasts for Trump will be watered down by the number of common sense voters. I have faith in the electorate to grasp what's on the ballot, and what a second Trump term would do to American democracy. In fact, I think the GOP does too, which is why they are, even as we speak, chipping away at the election process, at the local level, I believe. It's in expectation of being defeated at the ballot box again. (See 2020.) 

Except we haven't had an election since the early 90's with a legitimately strong independent candidate participating. And it is looking like this is going to be a 3 way race this time around, not another greater vs lesser evil one.

Think about it. You have two of the most unpopular candidates of all time running against each other for the 2nd time in a row. If you don't think a ton of disaffected people will vote "Kennedy" on the ballot in November 2024 in the swing states when they see his name as a choice, then you are seriously underestimating the typical low information American voter.  Kennedy is still the most well known last name in all of American politics.  Even an 18 year old who is flunking out of school in California knows the name JFK from their history books.  And it has none of the nastier baggage of Clinton, Bush, etc.

Additionally, polls have been showing consistently that a ton of younger people who normally vote Democrat will choose RFK Jr. over Biden in a heartbeat out of pure spite over issues like inflation, Israel, housing costs, etc.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Nov 29, 2023, 01:25 PMMy own guess is that he'll win the GOP primary but lose the general election, like he did in 2020. For the Primary, the Republican voters have a bunch of hardcore election-deniers and Trump enablers, which is why he's so far ahead in those GOP candidate polls.

In the wider context of the general election, I think that block of enthusiasts for Trump will be watered down by the number of common-sense voters. I have faith in the electorate to grasp what's on the ballot, and what a second Trump term would do to American democracy. In fact, I think the GOP does too, which is why they are, even as we speak, chipping away at the election process, at the local level, I believe. It's in expectation of being defeated at the ballot box again. (See 2020.) 

I'm essentially repeating what Nimbly is saying but Biden is a weak candidate, and the democrat vote is going to be so splintered that Trump will just slide in. The Trump cult will shine through, Biden is way too weak to repeat the narrow win he had in 2020. It wasn't like he blew Trump out of the water to begin with and now he has a track record for people to criticize him for and they will take him to task. Democrats are already planning to NOT even vote. The last time they reluctantly voted for him just as a NOT TRUMP canididate but he won't be able to win again off of that.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Nov 29, 2023, 02:50 PMI'm essentially repeating what Nimbly is saying but Biden is a weak candidate, and the democrat vote is going to be so splintered that Trump will just slide in. The Trump cult will shine through, Biden is way too weak to repeat the narrow win he had in 2020. It wasn't like he blew Trump out of the water to begin with and now he has a track record for people to criticize him for and they will take him to task. Democrats are already planning to NOT even vote. The last time they reluctantly voted for him just as a NOT TRUMP canididate but he won't be able to win again off of that.

I agree 100%.

I would tend to agree with DJ and Nimbly - but that's if the election was held today. A lot can happen in a year, and a week in politics is a lifetime. Trump could get convicted. Biden could step aside for a different candidate (Kamala or Newsom, maybe). There could be some huge scandal with either Biden or Trump that sways votes. It's hard to say.

Victor Hanson had a recorded chat recently that is pretty interesting if you haven't heard it already. I think he puts the context of this election in perspective pretty well (from the viewpoint of most Republicans), even if you might not agree with everything he says. To his point, I think the Democrat establishment are very afraid of Trump, because they believe he'll go after them just as hard as they've gone after him if he gets back into office.

Yeah, at this point I definitely agree as well. I hang out in a lot of left-leaning spaces and the amount of infighting going on with these "Biden supports Israel so I'm not voting" people is absolutely unbelievable and IMO shameful. As someone who will be very directly harmed by a Trump victory, knowing that people on the "left" would be so quick to hand Trump the election through not voting has been extremely traumatic and sobering for me.

The online left talks big game about supporting LGBT rights and feminism, but I know from this experience that it's all a fucking load. I have no idea how people can be so irresponsible with the future of this country.

Quote from: SGR on Nov 29, 2023, 03:57 PMBiden could step aside for a different candidate (Kamala or Newsom, maybe).

Gavin Newsom sure has been spending a good amount of time positioning himself as a possible Presidential candidate. My only question at this point is will he step in and run if Biden drops out for some reason? It sure looks like that's what he's setting himself up to do.

Quote from: Mrs. Waffles on Nov 29, 2023, 04:21 PMYeah, at this point I definitely agree as well. I hang out in a lot of left-leaning spaces and the amount of infighting going on with these "Biden supports Israel so I'm not voting" people is absolutely unbelievable and IMO shameful. As someone who will be very directly harmed by a Trump victory, knowing that people on the "left" would be so quick to hand Trump the election through not voting has been extremely traumatic and sobering for me.

The online left talks big game about supporting LGBT rights and feminism, but I know from this experience that it's all a fucking load. I have no idea how people can be so irresponsible with the future of this country.

I think something similar happened in 2016 with the 'Bernie or Bust' people. At the very least, the sentiment was there, and some of his supporters thought he'd been cheated out of the primary...something, something, superdelegates, bla bla bla.  Some of them even voted for Trump, many decided to abstain from voting.

There's also a strain of anti-semitism to be found on the far-left (just like the far-right) that hasn't been as visible since this Israel-Hamas conflict, and there are some pro-Israel liberals who feel a little bit betrayed or alienated by vocal Israel critics on the left, Michael Rapaport being the most recent example I can think of. For Biden and the left, the Israel-Hamas conflict seems like a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' kind of situation.

https://themessenger.com/entertainment/michael-rapaport-considering-voting-trump-x-rated-name

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Nov 29, 2023, 04:27 PMGavin Newsom sure has been spending a good amount of time positioning himself as a possible Presidential candidate. My only question at this point is will he step in and run if Biden drops out for some reason? It sure looks like that's what he's setting himself up to do.

Yeah, he's doing everything that DeSantis was doing before DeSantis announced his candidacy. Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck, etc.

I think everyone knows Kamala just is not gonna work as a presidential candidate. She's not likeable, she's not charismatic, and often times lately, she comes off as being rather unintelligent. The latter most thing is what's really weird to me, because I watched her in Senate hearings in the past, and she always came off as being really incisive, really aggressive, and she'd always absolutely grill Republicans. So how she went from that to a VP who often times make less sense than Biden with her word salads is a bit of a mystery to me. My pet theory is that, after becoming VP, she's become really stressed and has turned to the bottle - a functional alcoholic in other words. If you listen to some of her interviews and how she talks, it certainly comes off as a posibility.

But as we've discussed before, I'm not sure optically how the Democrats could pass over her, a black woman who's literally next in line to the presidency if something happened to Biden, for another white guy who's just a governor.

In either case - would Kamala or Newsom really provide much more of an advantage against Trump than Biden? As jwb has said before, swapping out Biden now would make the Dems look weak and indecisive. And there's the issue of time. If the Dems actually do a switcheroo, it's going to need to be handled expertly and deftly for it to go well for them at this point.

One other thought I've had is that if the Democrats had managed to win 2020 with practically anyone else (besides Bernie), they'd be able to criticize and castigate Trump for being too old (and they wouldn't be wrong) to run in 2024. But since they stuck with Biden, they've now handicapped themselves by removing that arrow from their quiver. Of course, the party line was that 'Only Joe Biden can beat Trump'. I don't know if I buy that though. After the pandemic and all of Trump's scandals, and how divisive he is, could Buttigieg or Gabbard really have not had a chance at beating him?

Quote from: Mrs. Waffles on Nov 29, 2023, 04:21 PMYeah, at this point I definitely agree as well. I hang out in a lot of left-leaning spaces and the amount of infighting going on with these "Biden supports Israel so I'm not voting" people is absolutely unbelievable and IMO shameful. As someone who will be very directly harmed by a Trump victory, knowing that people on the "left" would be so quick to hand Trump the election through not voting has been extremely traumatic and sobering for me.

The online left talks big game about supporting LGBT rights and feminism, but I know from this experience that it's all a fucking load. I have no idea how people can be so irresponsible with the future of this country.

yeah I'm so annoyed with the tribalism behind Pro Israel vs Pro Palestine. Forcing politicians to sign on for ceasefires like that would actually do anything in the Middle East is just clown behavior at this point. I don't get why they think a politician agreeing to sign a paper would be able to make two enemies that have been fighting for decades stop their little personal war.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Nov 29, 2023, 02:46 PMExcept we haven't had an election since the early 90's with a legitimately strong independent candidate participating. And it is looking like this is going to be a 3 way race this time around, not another greater vs lesser evil one.

Think about it. You have two of the most unpopular candidates of all time running against each other for the 2nd time in a row. If you don't think a ton of disaffected people will vote "Kennedy" on the ballot in November 2024 in the swing states when they see his name as a choice, then you are seriously underestimating the typical low information American voter.  Kennedy is still the most well known last name in all of American politics.  Even an 18 year old who is flunking out of school in California knows the name JFK from their history books.  And it has none of the nastier baggage of Clinton, Bush, etc.

Additionally, polls have been showing consistently that a ton of younger people who normally vote Democrat will choose RFK Jr. over Biden in a heartbeat out of pure spite over issues like inflation, Israel, housing costs, etc.

Excellent point, Nimbly, that I completely forgot about that third candidate.  :shycouch:
I don't know which polls are placing Kennedy high among young voters, but, remembering my own attitude as an 18-year-old, I don't think your argument, of "Look, here's an old guy whose name I've seen in history books; I'll go for him" is particularly representative of America's urban -or even rural- youth.

Quote from: SGR on Nov 29, 2023, 05:01 PMOne other thought I've had is that if the Democrats had managed to win 2020 with practically anyone else (besides Bernie), they'd be able to criticize and castigate Trump for being too old (and they wouldn't be wrong) to run in 2024. But since they stuck with Biden, they've now handicapped themselves by removing that arrow from their quiver. Of course, the party line was that 'Only Joe Biden can beat Trump'. I don't know if I buy that though. After the pandemic and all of Trump's scandals, and how divisive he is, could Buttigieg or Gabbard really have not had a chance at beating him?

Yes, that's a good point, SGR ! Not only have they lost the whole argument that a younger guy will be more competent, they've also lost the preference of young voters who prefer any candidate who isn't about 3 generations removed from them.

Also, for what it's worth, I'm not convinced that the "Biden supports Israel" issue will still be around in Nov 2024. We hear a lot about how US voters are focused on "kitchen table issues": I just can't imagine people arguing about "..but remember his stance on the Middle East quagmire a year ago? I can't vote for him."

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Nov 30, 2023, 01:27 AMI don't know which polls are placing Kennedy high among young voters, but, remembering my own attitude as an 18-year-old, I don't think your argument, of "Look, here's an old guy whose name I've seen in history books; I'll go for him" is particularly representative of America's urban -or even rural- youth.

RFK Jr. is the only one of the three candidates who talks about making housing affordable for young people, among other things.  And all of the major polling out there does suggest he's more popular than either Trump or Biden with pretty much everyone in that 18-29 range. I have a feeling the numbers would be even higher if we had larger data subsets to look at.

RFK Jr. leads Trump, Biden among voters under 45: Poll (https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/2024-election/rfk-leads-trump-biden-6-states-young-voters/)

^ Thanks for those statistics, Nimbly. The guy is clearly more popular than I imagined.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Nov 30, 2023, 01:34 AMAlso, for what it's worth, I'm not convinced that the "Biden supports Israel" issue will still be around in Nov 2024. We hear a lot about how US voters are focused on "kitchen table issues": I just can't imagine people arguing about "..but remember his stance on the Middle East quagmire a year ago? I can't vote for him."

I think you are underestimating how passionate people are about this Middle Eastern conflict. There is a specifically big Muslim community in Michigan which is a swing state that voted for Biden last time that isn't going to for him this time and the voting block is large enough that Trump will win Michigan because of it.

Yes, very possible that I'm underestimating how the present conflict in Gaza will effect US voters, DJ.
I wish Biden would dial back his all-in gung-ho support for Israel. There are surely better solutions that Israel could be employing than simply pulverising the city and its inhabitants.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Nov 30, 2023, 01:50 AMRFK Jr. is the only one of the three candidates who talks about making housing affordable for young people, among other things.  And all of the major polling out there does suggest he's more popular than either Trump or Biden with pretty much everyone in that 18-29 range. I have a feeling the numbers would be even higher if we had larger data subsets to look at.

RFK Jr. leads Trump, Biden among voters under 45: Poll (https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/2024-election/rfk-leads-trump-biden-6-states-young-voters/)

With support like that, in that age range, you'd have to imagine he'll end up siphoning more votes from Biden than from Trump (assuming these young people answering polls actually bother to vote).

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Nov 30, 2023, 01:50 AMRFK Jr. is the only one of the three candidates who talks about making housing affordable for young people, among other things.  And all of the major polling out there does suggest he's more popular than either Trump or Biden with pretty much everyone in that 18-29 range. I have a feeling the numbers would be even higher if we had larger data subsets to look at.

RFK Jr. leads Trump, Biden among voters under 45: Poll (https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/2024-election/rfk-leads-trump-biden-6-states-young-voters/)

Polls are full of shit. I don't like them or trust them. There were polls that had Hilary winning in 2016 and look how that turned out.

Quote from: SGR on Nov 30, 2023, 04:48 PMWith support like that, in that age range, you'd have to imagine he'll end up siphoning more votes from Biden than from Trump (assuming these young people answering polls actually bother to vote).

young people don't vote anyway.

The polls should definitely have Biden's team concerned, but at the same time it's too early to really put that much stock in them.  It's also worth noting that the Republicans just lost yet another election despite the polling.  At some point they're going to have to actually win an election and not just a poll.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Nov 30, 2023, 04:09 PMI think you are underestimating how passionate people are about this Middle Eastern conflict. There is a specifically big Muslim community in Michigan which is a swing state that voted for Biden last time that isn't going to for him this time and the voting block is large enough that Trump will win Michigan because of it.

That's true, but either way the Democrats lose on the issue of Isreal/ Palestine because they are split. So no matter which side you pick you piss a bunch of people off.

The fact is older people are more likely to support Israel and also more likely to vote.  And the status quo has been unconditional support for Israel for decades now.  It would be an inherently risky move to try to change that in the run up to your reelection.  And we can already see that Biden is not trying to take any risks at this point.

Quote from: Jwb on Dec 04, 2023, 06:11 PMyoung people don't vote anyway.

Biden won in 2020 because of younger voter turnout though.

I thought he won older demos and wine moms from the suburbs.  I wouldn't be surprised if he got the young vote but turn out was high across the board and older voters have always been more prominent and catered to as such.  Obviously they skew conservative on average as well but I thought most Democrat voters were still in those older demos.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Dec 04, 2023, 10:23 PMBiden won in 2020 because of younger voter turnout though.

I'm not sure if it was the younger vote, as much as the pandemic and the resulting ease of voting with mail-in ballots and ballot harvesting. Biden did get more votes than any president ever.

Quote from: Jwb on Dec 04, 2023, 06:25 PMThat's true, but either way the Democrats lose on the issue of Isreal/ Palestine because they are split. So no matter which side you pick you piss a bunch of people off.

The fact is older people are more likely to support Israel and also more likely to vote.  And the status quo has been unconditional support for Israel for decades now.  It would be an inherently risky move to try to change that in the run up to your reelection.  And we can already see that Biden is not trying to take any risks at this point.

I don't believe these are his calculations at this point. I heard Michael Oren, who knows him extremely well (Biden was his main contact when he was the Israeli envoy in Washington), talk about this on Israeli TV. Biden likes to quote his old man who used to tell him "never sacrifice yourself on a small cross". And Israel, according to Oren, is that cross on which Biden is prepared to sacrifice himself. He knows full well how unpopular his position is but he also knows that's the right thing to do.

Quote from: Jwb on Dec 04, 2023, 10:58 PMI thought he won older demos and wine moms from the suburbs.  I wouldn't be surprised if he got the young vote but turn out was high across the board and older voters have always been more prominent and catered to as such.  Obviously they skew conservative on average as well but I thought most Democrat voters were still in those older demos.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Dec 04, 2023, 10:23 PMBiden won in 2020 because of younger voter turnout though.

Yeah, voter turnout was higher than usual across all age groups, though the uptick was more pronounced with younger voters (bottom two lines) than older voters (top two lines).

(https://cdn.statcdn.com/Statistic/1095000/1096299-blank-355.png)

I'm hoping younger voters will be motivated again by the abortion issue - which can be of real and immediate concern among younger adults.

Quote from: SGR on Dec 05, 2023, 12:03 AMI'm not sure if it was the younger vote, as much as the pandemic and the resulting ease of voting with mail-in ballots and ballot harvesting. Biden did get more votes than any president ever.

^ Also Known As "facilitating the application of the principle: One Man, One Vote."

Quote from: jadis on Dec 05, 2023, 12:13 AMI don't believe these are his calculations at this point. I heard Michael Oren, who knows him extremely well (Biden was his main contact when he was the Israeli envoy in Washington), talk about this on Israeli TV. Biden likes to quote his old man who used to tell him "never sacrifice yourself on a small cross". And Israel, according to Oren, is that cross on which Biden is prepared to sacrifice himself. He knows full well how unpopular his position is but he also knows that's the right thing to do.

good to see you back bro

You might be right about that as well. To me it's kind of sickening the way our politicians give so much respect to Israel when they don't seem to really respect us at all.  They take our support as a given because it's always been more based on domestic sentiment especially among evangelical Christians much more than our actual strategic interests.

My point is that there's a real possibility that Biden will lose the 40 and below vote to someone like RFK Jr.  The idea of a third party independent undermining various Democrat constituencies in a real measurable way is normally an impossible scenario as far as past elections go.  Yet here we are...and it just goes to show you how unenthusiastic people are about Biden for a 2nd term.

Quote from: Jwb on Dec 05, 2023, 01:53 AMgood to see you back bro

You might be right about that as well. To me it's kind of sickening the way our politicians give so much respect to Israel when they don't seem to really respect us at all.  They take our support as a given because it's always been more based on domestic sentiment especially among evangelical Christians much more than our actual strategic interests.

Yeah great talking to you, surely @Marie Monday could unban you on MB?

Israel's biggest problem domestically and internationally is that its politics is subsumed into the black hole that is King Bibi. For Americans, Israel = Bibi Netanyahu. Sleepy is an old fart so he knows better. He's a Cold War guy, so for him Israel is tied to stuff like the long fight to repeal the truly shameful Soviet-drafted UN General Assembly Resolution 3379, not to mention the 1967 and 1973 wars. And he's got enough common sense to remember that it's the nation state of the group of people persecuted the most throughout history.     

There are many indications Sleepy despises Bibi (both for humiliating Obama and for actively harming Israel). Bibi still hasn't been to the White House on his watch.

Netanyahu is a very arrogant man in addition to all his other unfortunate qualities. He thinks he understands America and Americans better than Americans do (he's American after all) but can only appeal to Republicans. His insistence on humiliating Obama cost Israel in a big way.

I think that Herzog, the figurehead president, or Lapid, the opposition leader, are more representative of Israelis' attitude to Washington and to Americans than Bibi. Seriously, before Bibi/Obama there wasn't a hint of condescension (see Clinton's heartfelt "Shalom chaver" to Rabin). 

Quote from: jadis on Dec 05, 2023, 03:58 PMYeah great talking to you, surely @Marie Monday could unban you on MB?

Israel's biggest problem domestically and internationally is that its politics is subsumed into the black hole that is King Bibi. For Americans, Israel = Bibi Netanyahu. Sleepy is an old fart so he knows better. He's a Cold War guy, so for him Israel is tied to stuff like the long fight to repeal the truly shameful Soviet-drafted UN General Assembly Resolution 3379, not to mention the 1967 and 1973 wars. And he's got enough common sense to remember that it's the nation state of the group of people persecuted the most throughout history.     

There are many indications Sleepy despises Bibi (both for humiliating Obama and for actively harming Israel). Bibi still hasn't been to the White House on his watch.

Netanyahu is a very arrogant man in addition to all his other unfortunate qualities. He thinks he understands America and Americans better than Americans do (he's American after all) but can only appeal to Republicans. His insistence on humiliating Obama cost Israel in a big way.

I think that Herzog, the figurehead president, or Lapid, the opposition leader, are more representative of Israelis' attitude to Washington and to Americans than Bibi. Seriously, before Bibi/Obama there wasn't a hint of condescension (see Clinton's heartfelt "Shalom chaver" to Rabin). 

@jadis good to see you back! Out of curiosity, given your knowledge of Israel, which US presidential candidate (including the GOP field, and the independents) do you think would be best for Israel? In other words, which candidate's policies/policy proposals are you most confident would be favorable to Israel in a real and tangible way?

Quote from: DJChameleon on Dec 04, 2023, 12:48 PMPolls are full of shit. I don't like them or trust them. There were polls that had Hilary winning in 2016 and look how that turned out.

^ Yeah, it's important to remember this key observation about polls: they are super-fallible, but then, other than vague feelings, they are often the most concrete things we have to go on.

With that in mind, here's a poll, just out today, from the Harvard Institue of Politics, that seems to be taking the temperature of exactly what you were mentioning, Nimbly:-

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Dec 05, 2023, 03:36 PMMy point is that there's a real possibility that Biden will lose the 40 and below vote to someone like RFK Jr.  The idea of a third party independent undermining various Democrat constituencies in a real measurable way is normally an impossible scenario as far as past elections go.  Yet here we are...and it just goes to show you how unenthusiastic people are about Biden for a 2nd term.

The poll is among 18-29-year-olds, with Biden generally ahead - although narrowly eclipsed by "Don't Knows" in the first (totals) graph. That certainly suggests a lack of enthusiasm for Biden:-


(https://iop.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/styles/responsive_image_2000/public/media/image/2B.%20ZOy5h-if-the-election-for-president-were-held-today-and-the-candidates-were-candidate-list-for-whom-would-you-vote-.png?itok=JNGdnkxL)

Source: https://iop.harvard.edu/youth-poll/46th-edition-fall-2023

Quote from: SGR on Dec 05, 2023, 04:21 PM@jadis good to see you back! Out of curiosity, given your knowledge of Israel, which US presidential candidate (including the GOP field, and the independents) do you think would be best for Israel? In other words, which candidate's policies/policy proposals are you most confident would be favorable to Israel in a real and tangible way?

I'd say Israel needs a boring motherfucкer. A normal person schooled in the banal, tried n true US foreign policy doctrins. Israel good, Iran & Russia bad etc. Not whoever is the Tulsi Gabbard of the current campaign. No libertarian isolationists or any of that childish nonsense. Emphatically not Trump: too much of a wildcard, the opposite of a normal person, even if he's gonna take a pro-Israel tack he wil likely enable its worst and most destructive elements (i.e. the ones currently in charge) etc. Nor does Israel need some Ted Cruz type with all the evangelical nonsense.    

I prefaced all this with "I'd say" cause no one really knows. The Trump admin did achieve the Abraham Accords, the best thing that happened to Israel (to the entire region?) since the peace accord with Egypt probably. Maybe RFK Jr would turn out to be the best thing ever for Israel, though what if someone sends him some wordpress blog claiming the Mossad framed Sirhan Sirhan? Then what?

Biden and Blinken's approach is ideal: to Israel, full support. To Netanyahu, you're through (https://new.thecradle.co/articles-id/11618). My ideal candidate is someone with Blinken's brain and the charisma to win a presidential election. It could be a Republican whose distate for populism is so profound that he even dislikes Bibi Netanyahu. But they don't make 'em like that any more, do they? These people today are called "establishment democrats"... And since the only one of those in the race is on the wrong side of 80... I don't know...

Quote from: jadis on Dec 05, 2023, 03:58 PMYeah great talking to you, surely @Marie Monday could unban you on MB?

Israel's biggest problem domestically and internationally is that its politics is subsumed into the black hole that is King Bibi. For Americans, Israel = Bibi Netanyahu. Sleepy is an old fart so he knows better. He's a Cold War guy, so for him Israel is tied to stuff like the long fight to repeal the truly shameful Soviet-drafted UN General Assembly Resolution 3379, not to mention the 1967 and 1973 wars. And he's got enough common sense to remember that it's the nation state of the group of people persecuted the most throughout history.     

There are many indications Sleepy despises Bibi (both for humiliating Obama and for actively harming Israel). Bibi still hasn't been to the White House on his watch.

Netanyahu is a very arrogant man in addition to all his other unfortunate qualities. He thinks he understands America and Americans better than Americans do (he's American after all) but can only appeal to Republicans. His insistence on humiliating Obama cost Israel in a big way.

I think that Herzog, the figurehead president, or Lapid, the opposition leader, are more representative of Israelis' attitude to Washington and to Americans than Bibi. Seriously, before Bibi/Obama there wasn't a hint of condescension (see Clinton's heartfelt "Shalom chaver" to Rabin). 

re: MB... my understanding is that nobody over there had that authority.  It's been suggested to me i should just make an alt account, but the website seems pretty dead to me and i kind of don't want to give them the satisfaction of banning me again, as petty as that might be. I'm a petty fuck lol.

As for Bibi...tbf he's been their leader most of my adult life and I'm 36. At this point i would say it's on Israel if he represents them to the outside world. He's almost been in power as long as fuckin Putin at this point.  Obviously people are saying that's coming to an end.  Whenever they are done getting revenge i guess.

As for the most persecuted people on earth... the idea that Israel exists as some sort of safe haven from that is pretty laughable to me at this point.  We can't really be expected to believe that Israel is perpetually in the cross hairs of genocidal terror groups and then on the other hand speak about it as if it's somehow safer than the United States or even a lot of Europe is for jews. These two ideas should cause at least a tinge of cognitive dissonance. Not to mention the fact that said safe haven has lead to the current humanitarian disaster. I could see that argument seeming persuasive right after the holocaust.  But now that we've run the experiment i think that's a losing argument.

But honestly I'm sure you know more about the internal politics than i do, but i wouldn't mind if one of our presidents was willing to treat Bibi the way he treated Obama.  I can't even hate on Bibi in that case because at least he was doing what he thought was in Israel's strategic interests. It seems our leaders are seldom willing to do the same. Instead they perpetually assume whatever is in Israels interest must also be in our interest.  Notice they don't make the same assumptions about us.  Israel is not wrong in this dynamic. The United States is.

https://www.kwqc.com/2023/12/05/sean-hannity-host-town-hall-with-donald-trump-tuesday-davenport/


trump is doing a town hall with fox news tonight at the place I used to work at as a kid. It's in Davenport, Iowa (Quad Cities), but Davenport is more democrat so there will be protests like always. People stood in line to get into his last time in Davenport, and people harassed the line waiters lol

Im watching because its at the river center downtown but I cant stand trump so i'll probably watch like 20 mins and turn off.

why is this dude running for president again?! (https://boxden.com/smilies/SdE5CP1.png)

i hate this mf
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/f3187763bdb92500992dcacaadefa244/tumblr_otaws12wO51uzae1ko1_500.gif)

Quote from: Jwb on Dec 05, 2023, 08:06 PMre: MB... my understanding is that nobody over there had that authority.  It's been suggested to me i should just make an alt account, but the website seems pretty dead to me

C'mon man... we can revive it. You, me and the pseudo-lesbian...

QuoteBut honestly I'm sure you know more about the internal politics than i do, but i wouldn't mind if one of our presidents was willing to treat Bibi the way he treated Obama.  I can't even hate on Bibi in that case because at least he was doing what he thought was in Israel's strategic interests. It seems our leaders are seldom willing to do the same. Instead they perpetually assume whatever is in Israels interest must also be in our interest.  Notice they don't make the same assumptions about us.  Israel is not wrong in this dynamic. The United States is.

What are the US interests in the region though (apart from good relations with the owners of the oil pumps, who are gravitating toward Israel anyway)? It's not a particularly straightforward question. During the Cold War it was a matter of supporting a democracy (however troubled) against the alliance between a bunch of Arab dictatorships and the Soviets. I think some of it holds surprisingly true for today, for all that changed.

QuoteAs for the most persecuted people on earth... the idea that Israel exists as some sort of safe haven from that is pretty laughable to me at this point.  We can't really be expected to believe that Israel is perpetually in the cross hairs of genocidal terror groups and then on the other hand speak about it as if it's somehow safer than the United States or even a lot of Europe is for jews. These two ideas should cause at least a tinge of cognitive dissonance. Not to mention the fact that said safe haven has lead to the current humanitarian disaster. I could see that argument seeming persuasive right after the holocaust.  But now that we've run the experiment i think that's a losing argument.

Re the Holocaust, let's not forget the expulsion of some 800,000 Jews from Arab and Muslim countries in the subsequent decades.

But I agree there's a paradox here: on October 7 Israel was clearly the least safe place in the world to be a Jew; and yet a month later Jewish friends in Montreal started talking about Aliyah, (the "I'm not antisemitic, just antizionist" mobs in Montreal are so fucking bad (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/charkaoui-politicians-jewish-groups-react-1.7022426)). 
https://www.france24.com/en/video/20231116-montreal-jewish-community-in-shock-over-synagogue-firebombing-school-shootings

I don't want to say too much here but for many it's a matter of wishing to live without having to hide the signs of their Jewishness, which is becoming increasingly difficult in France especially (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/french-jews-fleeing-country).

QuoteThe interior ministry recorded more than 1,500 incidents in the six weeks following 7 October, ranging from the desecration of cemeteries to antisemitic graffiti and banners, social media attacks, vandalism against Jewish property, threats against Jews and a handful of assaults. This is more than three times as many as during the Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation in the early 2000s – the previous high-water mark for anti-Jewish hate offences.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/02/antisemitism-jews-france-emmanuel-macron-israel-hamas-war

I think the challenge is on us to try to understand the painful nature of anti-Jewish persecution. 

Re "the experiment"... Antisemitism always morphs and adjusts. Once the Jews were hated for their religion, then for their "race" and now it's for their state (takes an idiot to think that antisemitism always comes dressed in SS uniform). We should remind ourselves it's the problem of the antisemites, not Jews.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Dec 05, 2023, 04:36 PMThe poll is among 18-29-year-olds, with Biden generally ahead - although narrowly eclipsed by "Don't Knows" in the first (totals) graph. That certainly suggests a lack of enthusiasm for Biden:-


(https://iop.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/styles/responsive_image_2000/public/media/image/2B.%20ZOy5h-if-the-election-for-president-were-held-today-and-the-candidates-were-candidate-list-for-whom-would-you-vote-.png?itok=JNGdnkxL)

Source: https://iop.harvard.edu/youth-poll/46th-edition-fall-2023

I think that lack of enthusiasm may be a big reason why Biden might lose. Trump has a very enthusiastic and loyal base that's going to vote for him regardless - Biden doesn't really have that. I think many people who voted for Biden in 2020 weren't voting for him so much as they were voting against Trump. Now that Biden's been in office for 3 years, life still sucks and hasn't gotten better for young people (I should know), I think that for many, apathy has set in a bit. Where they might've voted for Biden in 2020, they might just stay home this time.

If anyone wants to watch the debate tonight:

https://rumble.com/v3yn515-rnc-fourth-presidential-primary-debate.html

Definitely Vivek's best debate experience of the four events.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Dec 07, 2023, 06:20 AMDefinitely Vivek's best debate experience of the four events.

He had me rolling with laughter once he showed off his legal pad.  :laughing:

Quote from: jadis on Dec 06, 2023, 01:07 PMC'mon man... we can revive it. You, me and the pseudo-lesbian...

LOL

Quote from: SGR on Dec 06, 2023, 06:34 PMI think that lack of enthusiasm may be a big reason why Biden might lose. Trump has a very enthusiastic and loyal base that's going to vote for him regardless - Biden doesn't really have that. I think many people who voted for Biden in 2020 weren't voting for him so much as they were voting against Trump. Now that Biden's been in office for 3 years, life still sucks and hasn't gotten better for young people (I should know), I think that for many, apathy has set in a bit. Where they might've voted for Biden in 2020, they might just stay home this time.

^ I'm sorry to hear your verdict on life, SGR. I hope things aren't too grim for you for too long. You're right about the dynamic of people voting Biden just to get Trump out of office in 2020, and perhaps, as you say, young people might be deciding to stay at home in 2024. That could cause a real prob for the US, which is, according to Liz Cheney, "sleepwalking into a dictatorship". 

Here's a totally biased list of Biden accomplishments, because it comes from the official White House website. Some are rather vague and most are drops-in-the-ocean stuff, so I'm sure they don't have much immediate impact on you. Even so, isn't there anything on there that makes you think, "oh, yeah. That's a good thing done." 

Spoiler

TOP ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Lowering Costs of Families' Everyday Expenses

More People Are Working Than At Any Point in American History

Making More in America

Rescued the Economy and Changed the Course of the Pandemic

Rebuilding our Infrastructure

Historic Expansion of Benefits and Services for Toxic Exposed Veterans

The First Meaningful Gun Violence Reduction Legislation in 30 Years

Protected Marriage for LGBTQI+ and Interracial Couples

Historic Confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Federal Judges of Diverse Backgrounds

Rallied the World to Support Ukraine in Response to Putin's Aggression

Strengthened Alliances and Partnerships to Deliver for the American People

Successful Counterterrorism Missions Against the Leaders of Al Qaeda and ISIS

Executive Orders Protecting Reproductive Rights

Historic Student Debt Relief for Middle- and Working-Class Families

Ending our Failed Approach to Marijuana

Advancing Equity and Racial Justice, Including Historic Criminal Justice Reform

Delivering on the Most Aggressive Climate and Environmental Justice Agenda in American History

More People with Health Insurance Than Ever Before
 
Source and details: https://www.whitehouse.gov/therecord/

[close]

https://twitter.com/theblaze/status/1732585805128892673

It's one thing to say that demographics is used as a political tool (it is) and that immigration policy of a govt is open to debate (a discussion within a political community what are the condition of membership in it and at what rate should others be able to join is not racist. A political community by definition has an outside). Endorsing the explanatory logic of the most racist theory to come out of the French far right since WW2 is a different thing. This guy is a disaster. 

Agreed. What the actual fuck

It isn't that hard to talk about tbh. It's short game / long game dynamics at play.  Democrats want large scale amnesty for people who came here illegally because it adds millions of potential Democrat voters to the registry.  Republicans make a stronger distinction between people who came here through illegal means versus those who wait years in line for an opportunity, so they aren't ever going to embrace amnesty-oriented policies even if such a policy might actually turn those people into Republican voters long-term.

They are thinking about it like this - "Even if we can convince a percentage of those people as they get older to give the Republican platform a chance, we're still talking eons of time in a political sense". In order to do something about that narrative, they'd have to come up with their own take on immigration reform that makes sense and so far they've done very little about it.  And they have nobody to blame but themselves for not having a good answer to some of these issues.

This is from 10 years ago but still fairly relevant in regards to any conversation about what Vivek is most likely looking at.

Politico - Immigration reform could be bonanza for Dems (https://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/immigration-reform-could-upend-electoral-college-090478?hp=t1)

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Dec 08, 2023, 05:03 AM^ I'm sorry to hear your verdict on life, SGR. I hope things aren't too grim for you for too long. You're right about the dynamic of people voting Biden just to get Trump out of office in 2020, and perhaps, as you say, young people might be deciding to stay at home in 2024. That could cause a real prob for the US, which is, according to Liz Cheney, "sleepwalking into a dictatorship". 

Here's a totally biased list of Biden accomplishments, because it comes from the official White House website. Some are rather vague and most are drops-in-the-ocean stuff, so I'm sure they don't have much immediate impact on you. Even so, isn't there anything on there that makes you think, "oh, yeah. That's a good thing done." 

Spoiler

TOP ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Lowering Costs of Families' Everyday Expenses

More People Are Working Than At Any Point in American History

Making More in America

Rescued the Economy and Changed the Course of the Pandemic

Rebuilding our Infrastructure

Historic Expansion of Benefits and Services for Toxic Exposed Veterans

The First Meaningful Gun Violence Reduction Legislation in 30 Years

Protected Marriage for LGBTQI+ and Interracial Couples

Historic Confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Federal Judges of Diverse Backgrounds

Rallied the World to Support Ukraine in Response to Putin's Aggression

Strengthened Alliances and Partnerships to Deliver for the American People

Successful Counterterrorism Missions Against the Leaders of Al Qaeda and ISIS

Executive Orders Protecting Reproductive Rights

Historic Student Debt Relief for Middle- and Working-Class Families

Ending our Failed Approach to Marijuana

Advancing Equity and Racial Justice, Including Historic Criminal Justice Reform

Delivering on the Most Aggressive Climate and Environmental Justice Agenda in American History

More People with Health Insurance Than Ever Before
 
Source and details: https://www.whitehouse.gov/therecord/

[close]

I didn't mean it to be a verdict on life, just how a lot of young people are probably feeling now - inflation and the absolute insanity of real estate prices and high interest rates. For me personally, a few years back, buying a house was very well within reach, and then COVID happened and those fucking houses got driven up over $150k in price, making it a lot more difficult. Not only that, but the real estate market, at least in my area, is still insanely hot. And we've got rich boomers from out of state that are buying up these houses, sight unseen, as a vacation home or with plans for an AirB&B. So some of the houses I've planned to check out are under contract within days before I can even see them. Other houses have an offer deadline 24 hours from the time you see them - make one of the biggest financial decisions of your life in 24 hours? Really?

I'm technically a millennial, one of the last. And we're, I think, the first generation in a long time to have it worse than the previous generation (in America). It's just frustrating.

And no doubt that Biden has his accomplishments, but his administration's messaging is poor. And I'm guessing a lot of young people, myself included, would have to think long and hard if we were asked how Biden has made our lives better.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Dec 08, 2023, 04:29 PMIt isn't that hard to talk about tbh. It's short game / long game dynamics at play.  Democrats want large scale amnesty for people who came here illegally because it adds millions of potential Democrat voters to the registry.  Republicans make a stronger distinction between people who came here through illegal means versus those who wait years in line for an opportunity, so they aren't ever going to embrace amnesty-oriented policies even if such a policy might actually turn those people into Republican voters long-term.

They are thinking about it like this - "Even if we can convince a percentage of those people as they get older to give the Republican platform a chance, we're still talking eons of time in a political sense". In order to do something about that narrative, they'd have to come up with their own take on immigration reform that makes sense and so far they've done very little about it.  And they have nobody to blame but themselves for not having a good answer to some of these issues.

This is from 10 years ago but still fairly relevant in regards to any conversation about what Vivek is most likely looking at.

Politico - Immigration reform could be bonanza for Dems (https://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/immigration-reform-could-upend-electoral-college-090478?hp=t1)

So this is kinda funny, Vivek said in the debate: '[The Great Replacement theory] is not some grand right-wing conspiracy theory, but a basic statement of the Democratic party's platform.' and CNN's Van Jones was 'literally shaking' listening to him say it:

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/i-was-shaking-listening-to-him-van-jones-says-vivek-ramaswamys-debate-remarks-one-step-away-from-nazi-propaganda/

Vivek's campaign found this from Van Jones in 2021.  :laughing:  :laughing:

https://twitter.com/VivekGRamaswamy/status/1732961353411833935

Van Jones doth protest too much. It looks, y'know, maybe a little disingenuous when you're criticizing Vivek for what he said, when you're on camera saying "The request from the racial justice left: we want the white majority to go from being a majority to being a minority and like it."

Quote from: SGR on Dec 08, 2023, 04:48 PMI didn't mean it to be a verdict on life, just how a lot of young people are probably feeling now - inflation and the absolute insanity of real estate prices and high interest rates. For me personally, a few years back, buying a house was very well within reach, and then COVID happened and those fucking houses got driven up over $150k in price, making it a lot more difficult. Not only that, but the real estate market, at least in my area, is still insanely hot. And we've got rich boomers from out of state that are buying up these houses, sight unseen, as a vacation home or with plans for an AirB&B. So some of the houses I've planned to check out are under contract within days before I can even see them. Other houses have an offer deadline 24 hours from the time you see them - make one of the biggest financial decisions of your life in 24 hours? Really?

I'm technically a millennial, one of the last. And we're, I think, the first generation in a long time to have it worse than the previous generation (in America). It's just frustrating.

And no doubt that Biden has his accomplishments, but his administration's messaging is poor. And I'm guessing a lot of young people, myself included, would have to think long and hard if we were asked how Biden has made our lives better.

Yes, I'm sorry, SGR. I didn't mean to say that your casual remark was like your final philosophic summary of life. My apologies.
I'm really sorry if covid robbed you of your chance to buy a house, and I hope you are able to try again even if you have to aim lower in terms of what you can buy. I sympathise with what you say about houses, because that has so long been true in the UK too, at least in the popular south-east of the country. Houses are just beyond the reach of most first-time buyers, and apartments sell so fast that you have to make snap decisions or risk being "gazumped" (= someone comes in with a higher offer and you lose the chance to buy.)

So, yeah, for millenials and later generations, a lot about life sucks - but as usual, with my pro-Democrat agenda, I'd like to mention that inflation and property prices are common probs around the world: I suspect that Biden is not to blame, and Biden can't fix it, but even so he'll be better for America than MAGA Republicans, dismantling abortion rights, voting rights, Obamacare, etc, etc. Then people will have even more cause to say, "we have it worse than previous generations".

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Dec 08, 2023, 04:29 PMIt isn't that hard to talk about tbh. It's short game / long game dynamics at play.  Democrats want large scale amnesty for people who came here illegally because it adds millions of potential Democrat voters to the registry.  Republicans make a stronger distinction between people who came here through illegal means versus those who wait years in line for an opportunity, so they aren't ever going to embrace amnesty-oriented policies even if such a policy might actually turn those people into Republican voters long-term.

They are thinking about it like this - "Even if we can convince a percentage of those people as they get older to give the Republican platform a chance, we're still talking eons of time in a political sense". In order to do something about that narrative, they'd have to come up with their own take on immigration reform that makes sense and so far they've done very little about it.  And they have nobody to blame but themselves for not having a good answer to some of these issues.

This is from 10 years ago but still fairly relevant in regards to any conversation about what Vivek is most likely looking at.

Politico - Immigration reform could be bonanza for Dems (https://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/immigration-reform-could-upend-electoral-college-090478?hp=t1)

But it doesn't and you know why? They aren't able to vote so that's not even an argument. Also the so called illegals that people complain about ARE actually legal. If you are an asylum seeker you are at the beginning of the legal process to come into the country. Immigrants is what this country was founded on but all of a sudden the most patriotic party seems to forget how the nation that they love so much came to be and that their ancestors were immigrants as well at one point in time unless they are native Americans.

Republicans should back immigrants more a prime example is in Florida where Cubans come to the states then want to shut the door behind them and are all of a sudden anti-immigrants and share the values of Republicans so they end up voting red.

Vivek was a whole ass clown in that debate and by far the worst performance he has ever had. It might have been his most entertaining to watch but debate wise he is all over the place and falling apart. Jumping super hard behind conspiracy theories like was mentioned earlier by jadis to break out gags that stupid legal pad was lame. I hated it. He lost me completely I don't even care now.

It is beginning to feel like Vivek is just a proxy for Trump, given his absence in the debates.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Dec 11, 2023, 11:42 AMBut it doesn't and you know why? They aren't able to vote so that's not even an argument. Also the so called illegals that people complain about ARE actually legal.

You should try that argument over at a U.S. embassy sometime.  I'd love to hear what they'd say about it.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Dec 11, 2023, 11:42 AMRepublicans should back immigrants more a prime example is in Florida where Cubans come to the states then want to shut the door behind them and are all of a sudden anti-immigrants and share the values of Republicans so they end up voting red.

I don't disagree.  The smart thing for Republicans to do politically would be to stop complaining about how the Democrats give "free" phones and hotel rooms and other stuff to illegals and their incessant whining about shifting demographics and the "rule of law" and just commit to being the vanguard at passing some big ass amnesty laws.  They'd wipe Democrats off the map forever if they did that within a decade or two, but that would require a massive sea change in thinking about immigration policy that I doubt they have the capability for.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Dec 11, 2023, 11:42 AMVivek was a whole ass clown in that debate and by far the worst performance he has ever had. It might have been his most entertaining to watch but debate wise he is all over the place and falling apart. Jumping super hard behind conspiracy theories like was mentioned earlier by jadis to break out gags that stupid legal pad was lame. I hated it. He lost me completely I don't even care now.

He's right about Nikki Haley and the neocons so tbh I could care less about conspiracy theories.  We already know the world is full of conspiracies - law of averages works in Vivek's favor here. Remember MK Ultra? That was real despite elites up in Washington and elsewhere saying it wasn't for years and years. Someone gonna take responsibility for that over on capitol hill? Probably not.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Dec 11, 2023, 11:42 AMIf you are an asylum seeker you are at the beginning of the legal process to come into the country. Immigrants is what this country was founded on but all of a sudden the most patriotic party seems to forget how the nation that they love so much came to be and that their ancestors were immigrants as well at one point in time unless they are native Americans.

The U.S. has a broken system in general for anyone who wants to even visit here, much less live here.  I would know, seeing as I've been dealing with it for someone special to me from overseas for over a year.  But very few in our political ruling class are going to tell you open borders is a good idea because they've seen how badly its gone over in Europe.  Nobody wants to risk being complicit, even indirectly, of some future 9/11-type event in their country that came about as a result of letting someone in from X or Y country.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Dec 08, 2023, 04:29 PMIt isn't that hard to talk about tbh. It's short game / long game dynamics at play.  Democrats want large scale amnesty for people who came here illegally because it adds millions of potential Democrat voters to the registry.  Republicans make a stronger distinction between people who came here through illegal means versus those who wait years in line for an opportunity, so they aren't ever going to embrace amnesty-oriented policies even if such a policy might actually turn those people into Republican voters long-term.

They are thinking about it like this - "Even if we can convince a percentage of those people as they get older to give the Republican platform a chance, we're still talking eons of time in a political sense". In order to do something about that narrative, they'd have to come up with their own take on immigration reform that makes sense and so far they've done very little about it.  And they have nobody to blame but themselves for not having a good answer to some of these issues.

This is from 10 years ago but still fairly relevant in regards to any conversation about what Vivek is most likely looking at.

Politico - Immigration reform could be bonanza for Dems (https://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/immigration-reform-could-upend-electoral-college-090478?hp=t1)

people were making this argument 10 years ago,  i honestly remeber hearing a similar segment on npr in line 2012, but the recent trends with both Hispanic and black voters seem to cast the idea that these are Democrat voters into doubt

I also think you are overlooking the elephant in the room: the Republican base themselves are rabidly anti immigrant. If they were to pivot outright with a pro immigration policy, that actually very likely would hurt whichever republican politicians embraced that policy, because they stand to lose more white voters than they stand to gain Hispanics.

But what is the other option besides amnesty? How many of them do you realistically think it's feasible to even deport? Republicans aren't even living in reality when they speak about this issue.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Dec 11, 2023, 07:17 PMYou should try that argument over at a U.S. embassy sometime.  I'd love to hear what they'd say about it.

Xenophobes mix asylum seekers in with illegal immigrants. I'm not saying there aren't any illegal immigrants but the ones that have come to NYC specifically over the past year and a half are different. They have gone through criminal background checks and have medical backgrounds done on them along with giving them any shots they need to get their health status up to date. They have it happen in Texas when they cross the border and load up onto the buses and they are checked again once they get to NYC. I know because I have talked to some of the Asylum Seekers that were bussed upstate. I was part of a welcome party with a local community group so they aren't scared away by fear mongering idiots in the red party.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Dec 11, 2023, 07:17 PMI don't disagree.  The smart thing for Republicans to do politically would be to stop complaining about how the Democrats give "free" phones and hotel rooms and other stuff to illegals and their incessant whining about shifting demographics and the "rule of law" and just commit to being the vanguard at passing some big ass amnesty laws.  They'd wipe Democrats off the map forever if they did that within a decade or two, but that would require a massive sea change in thinking about immigration policy that I doubt they have the capability for.

They are too busy gerrymandering districts to care about putting together a comprehensive amnesty plan/law.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Dec 11, 2023, 07:17 PMHe's right about Nikki Haley and the neocons so tbh I could care less about conspiracy theories.  We already know the world is full of conspiracies - law of averages works in Vivek's favor here. Remember MK Ultra? That was real despite elites up in Washington and elsewhere saying it wasn't for years and years. Someone gonna take responsibility for that over on capitol hill? Probably not.

That's the thing, it doesn't matter if he's right or wrong. He's still ends up looking like a lunatic for siding with these conspiracy theories. He might as well go all in and say that Q endorses him.  :laughing:

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Dec 11, 2023, 07:17 PMThe U.S. has a broken system in general for anyone who wants to even visit here, much less live here.  I would know, seeing as I've been dealing with it for someone special to me from overseas for over a year.  But very few in our political ruling class are going to tell you open borders is a good idea because they've seen how badly its gone over in Europe. Nobody wants to risk being complicit, even indirectly, of some future 9/11-type event in their country that came about as a result of letting someone in from X or Y country.

This is more fear mongering talking points from Fox News imo. Specifically the bolded part. We have let a lot of immigrants in so far, I'm not pro-open borders but I think the amount of people that we have let in so far is fine. We just need federal funding to get their shit together and provide the funds to house some of these individual and for stupid republicans not to fight back so hard. There are plenty of housing areas available upstate NY that could take some of the pressure off of NYC but the Republicans in power upstate are fighting tooth and nail not to have immigrants come to their areas which would end up being a bonus for local businesses because they would in turn end up having a better workforce.

You say it's a talking point, but can you really blame them? Most of the hijackers who ended up blowing up the twin towers came to the U.S. originally on tourist visas after all.  Unfortunately, the immigration system is still reeling from that incident even now. The paranoia from people in government regarding self-identified asylum seekers coming here that evade background checks or falsify information or run off somehow is palpable.

See, it doesn't matter to our red and blue overlords if 99.9% of their fears are unfounded. Their attitude is an understandable but ultimately punitive overcorrection to a problem they don't really know how to solve.  But you can't have a truly just society without allowing for some risk.  Everything is a trade-off.  They just aren't willing to do it.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Dec 11, 2023, 07:17 PMBut very few in our political ruling class are going to tell you open borders is a good idea because they've seen how badly its gone over in Europe.  Nobody wants to risk being complicit, even indirectly, of some future 9/11-type event in their country that came about as a result of letting someone in from X or Y country.

No,  I don't agree at all lol.  It's not a security concern.  That concern is just inherit to sharing a massive border with Mexico and another with Canada,  though that one isn't as notorious both pose an inherit security threat to a certain extent.  But all things considered  we have probably the most secure set up in the entire world.  There are issues with drug trafficking and other types of trafficking of course, but a potential terror threat coming through the southern border is not necessarily any more likely than them just flying here commercially with a valid passport. There is no border policy that protects you from a future 9/11. Only a robust and effective intelligence agency can do such a thing.

And you can point to Muslims in Europe which is a common scare tactic but the reality is,  whatever you want to say about muslim immigrants in Europe doesn't really apply to Central and southern American immigrants to the United states.  There is organized crime, but not so much in the way of Jihad.  And culturally they really aren't nearly as foreign as someone from say North Africa or the middle east.

The main concern is and has always been demographics.  In other words maintaining a white majority. We don't like to say that part out loud.  But our parents used to. 

Quote from: Jwb on Dec 11, 2023, 11:50 PMNo,  I don't agree at all lol.  It's not a security concern.  That concern is just inherit to sharing a massive border with Mexico and another with Canada,  though that one isn't as notorious both pose an inherit security threat to a certain extent.  But all things considered  we have probably the most secure set up in the entire world.  There are issues with drug trafficking and other types of trafficking of course, but a potential terror threat coming through the southern border is not necessarily any more likely than them just flying here commercially with a valid passport. There is no border policy that protects you from a future 9/11. Only a robust and effective intelligence agency can do such a thing.

And you can point to Muslims in Europe which is a common scare tactic but the reality is,  whatever you want to say about muslim immigrants in Europe doesn't really apply to Central and southern American immigrants to the United states.  There is organized crime, but not so much in the way of Jihad.  And culturally they really aren't nearly as foreign as someone from say North Africa or the middle east.

The main concern is and has always been demographics.  In other words maintaining a white majority. We don't like to say that part out loud.  But our parents used to.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Dec 11, 2023, 11:05 PMSee, it doesn't matter to our red and blue overlords if 99.9% of their fears are unfounded. Their attitude is an understandable but ultimately punitive overcorrection to a problem they don't really know how to solve.  But you can't have a truly just society without allowing for some risk.  Everything is a trade-off.  They just aren't willing to do it.

It's not even the motivation.  It's literally just propaganda. The motivations are the demographics.  Every once in a while someone trots out the terror argument,  but that's far from the predominant argument used.

OK so I just backtracked and saw jadis post.  So Vivek's claim is the Great Replacement Theory is democratic policy.  That's  different from just saying Democrats like immigration because they think the demographics favor them. The great replacement theory, as far asi know,  refers to an intentional "replacement" of white citizens with more subordinate third worlders or whatever. So that they can more easily control them or something like that.  Is that not what Great replacement theory refers to?

Quote from: Jwb on Dec 12, 2023, 12:49 AMOK so I just backtracked and saw jadis post.  So Vivek's claim is the Great Replacement Theory is democratic policy.  That's  different from just saying Democrats like immigration because they think the demographics favor them. The great replacement theory, as far asi know,  refers to an intentional "replacement" of white citizens with more subordinate third worlders or whatever. So that they can more easily control them or something like that.  Is that not what Great replacement theory refers to?

I brought it up a bit earlier, but the insinuation is that Democrats (as opposed to Republicans) want a low-income "unpatriotic" population who will vote for them because they cater to people who don't have much to their name, are generally poor and like large scale social programs that meet most of their monthly financial needs. 

To your comments before - there was originally a purely racial interpretation of that conspiracy, but it doesn't paint a completely accurate picture of the present meaning of a "Great Replacement" either - when you look at which demographics in the U.S. along racial lines make the most money and would be most wary of a sudden influx of lower income people into their local areas, it isn't even white people...it's Asians and Indians who came here legally and have built some generational wealth.  Vivek is speaking to that audience while tapping into old white Republican fears at the same time. 

He's effectively saying - "Democrats are favoring policies to bring more and more border crossing people that they'll legalize in order to outnumber you at the polls in your red states to flip your town/city/state, etc. Your taxes will go up and your Asian/Indian/White sons and daughters will be subsidizing illegal immigrants instead of building their own wealth."

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Dec 12, 2023, 01:03 AMI brought it up a bit earlier, but the insinuation is that Democrats (as opposed to Republicans) want a low-income "unpatriotic" population who will vote for them because they cater to people who don't have much to their name, are generally poor and like large scale social programs that meet most of their monthly financial needs. 

To your comments before - there was originally a purely racial interpretation of that conspiracy, but it doesn't paint a completely accurate picture of the present meaning of a "Great Replacement" either - when you look at which demographics in the U.S. along racial lines make the most money and would be most wary of a sudden influx of lower income people into their local areas, it isn't even white people...it's Asians and Indians who came here legally and have built some generational wealth.  Vivek is speaking to that audience while tapping into old white Republican fears at the same time. 

He's effectively saying - "Democrats are favoring policies to bring more and more border crossing people that they'll legalize in order to outnumber you at the polls in your red states to flip your town/city/state, etc. Your taxes will go up and your Asian/Indian/White sons and daughters will be subsidizing illegal immigrants instead of building their own wealth."

OK first of all, he could have easily said that.  As you just did.  He said Great replacement. That's an intentional decision.  It's a nod to people who belive in that.  And you say it started out as a racial conspiracy theory but the modern version is somehow different.  Isn't it a fairly recent theory? Wasn't it just a few years ago that tucker Carlson was spelling this narrative out on fox news? Pretty sure when people hear great replacement, that's what they still think.

Quote from: Jwb on Dec 12, 2023, 01:52 AMOK first of all, he could have easily said that.  As you just did.  He said Great replacement. That's an intentional decision.  It's a nod to people who belive in that.  And you say it started out as a racial conspiracy theory but the modern version is somehow different.  Isn't it a fairly recent theory? Wasn't it just a few years ago that tucker Carlson was spelling this narrative out on fox news? Pretty sure when people hear great replacement, that's what they still think.

The racial take on it supposedly has roots in early 20th century French nationalism.

My conclusion is that Vivek's approach looks like a blueprint of what a younger and more ethnically diverse GOP is going to follow in coming decades.  Except instead of merely appealing to the fear of the Other that white people have, future Viveks will be appealing to the fears of middle class / upper crust multi-generational Cuban-Americans, the rich Asians and middle class + the wealthy Indians (specifically Brahman class) who call the U.S. home and who hate the poor just as much as a lot of white people do.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Dec 12, 2023, 04:07 AMThe racial take on it supposedly has roots in early 20th century French nationalism.

The racial take on a white supremacist meme from 2011 "has roots in early 20th century French nationalism."

Quote from: jadis on Dec 13, 2023, 12:42 AMThe racial take on a white supremacist meme from 2011 "has roots in early 20th century French nationalism."

*shrug*. It's where the ADL says it came from.

I don't see how it's relevant if it is,  though.  The question is when did it pivot from racist conspiracy theory to something more redeemable in your eyes?

Donald Trump Releases 'Mugshot Edition' Digital Trading Cards—Offers Pieces Of Suit From Fulton County Arrest (https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2023/12/12/donald-trump-releases-mugshot-edition-digital-trading-cards-offers-pieces-of-suit-from-fulton-county-arrest/?sh=426f33dc676e)

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Dec 13, 2023, 02:16 AMThe racial take on it supposedly has roots in early 20th century French nationalism.

Renaud Camus, one of France's most famous professional racists, coined the "Great Replacement" in 2011. What can a "racial take," implying the existence of a rival non-racial interpretation, even mean in this context?

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Dec 13, 2023, 12:38 PMDonald Trump Releases 'Mugshot Edition' Digital Trading Cards—Offers Pieces Of Suit From Fulton County Arrest (https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2023/12/12/donald-trump-releases-mugshot-edition-digital-trading-cards-offers-pieces-of-suit-from-fulton-county-arrest/?sh=426f33dc676e)

his first set of NFTs doubled in price within a week. probably why hes doing round two.


NFTs are a scam though. It's like a sports card, only worth what someone will pay. At least with crypto you can sell anytime.

Quote from: Mindy on Dec 13, 2023, 04:06 PMIt's like a sports card, only worth what someone will pay.

I don't like NFTs, but you could say that about everything. The value of something is what someone is willing to pay for it.

Quote from: Mindy on Dec 13, 2023, 04:06 PMAt least with crypto you can sell anytime.

Do you remember Trump's 'Megacoin' crypto? Whatever happened with that? Did anyone actually buy any? 

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Dec 13, 2023, 04:53 PMDo you remember Trump's 'Megacoin' crypto? Whatever happened with that? Did anyone actually buy any?

Not magacoin?

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Dec 13, 2023, 04:53 PMDo you remember Trump's 'Megacoin' crypto? Whatever happened with that? Did anyone actually buy any?

never heard of it, but those low market cap meme coins are too risky for this current crypto cycle. People got smart and realized it'd be a rug pull unless you got in and out within a couple of days with gains.
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/maga-trump/
up 25-30% just today  :laughing:

Quote from: Jwb on Dec 13, 2023, 04:58 AMI don't see how it's relevant if it is,  though.  The question is when did it pivot from racist conspiracy theory to something more redeemable in your eyes?

It is relevant though.  The world is moving toward a place where white people are still a prominent demographic, but most likely not a majority in the U.S. and elsewhere over the next decade or so. Vivek says that he's speaking to a multi-ethnic younger GOP and and is looking toward that growing audience.  I already illustrated what that looks like in more depth earlier in another post.

The whole "replacement" thing isn't even something nefarious or orchestrated by evil elites though - only racists care about that. I just think its funny to see people who should know better call it a "conspiracy theory" when a five second Google search or a few clicks on YouTube will bring up tons of people who aren't white saying that they look at the way society is going and think whites are making up less and less of a voting bloc as time goes on. The Officer Tatum-esque channels, Hodgetwins, the Cartier Family, etc.

Going by that video that Vivek shared of Van Jones from 2021, I'd say Vivek knows most of this. There's tons of more examples out there too, but he used Van Jones's own words as an example of it being part of the Democratic platform's long bet.

I don't think referencing the Great Replacement Theory is a big winner with a diverse electorate in 2024 no matter how you slice it though.  You can be right about something like that as a general observation and it won't matter if the media decide to "interpret" your comments in the least charitable light for their own purposes, which is something that happens to Vivek a lot.   He'd be better off just sticking to an anti-neocon message.  He'd pick up more independents that way.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Dec 13, 2023, 06:13 PMIt is relevant though.  The world is moving toward a place where white people are still a prominent demographic, but most likely not a majority in the U.S. and elsewhere over the next decade or so. Vivek says that he's speaking to a multi-ethnic younger GOP and and is looking toward that growing audience.  I already illustrated what that looks like in more depth earlier in another post.

Speaking to an audience that doesn't come out to vote. Sounds like a winning strategy. Bold move cotton.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Dec 13, 2023, 07:27 PMSpeaking to an audience that doesn't come out to vote. Sounds like a winning strategy. Bold move cotton.

I wouldn't say that.  Florida went to DeSantis because of that demographic after all.  I just don't think enough of that growing coalition is going to swing 2024 at this point though.  Maybe 2028 or 2032.

Quote from: grindy on Dec 13, 2023, 04:57 PMNot magacoin?

You are correct! That was a typo on my end.

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Dec 13, 2023, 10:46 PMYou are correct! That was a typo on my end.

Lol, I was half joking, never heard about this.

This poll was about the general, not the primary.

Election 2024: Trump Opens 10-Point Lead (https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/public_surveys/election_2024_trump_opens_10_point_lead)

^ I find that some of these poll results depress me more than they should, given that I'm watching US politics from the outside and it has no real bearing on my life. Even so:-

Before Trump went sailing down that famous escalator, he was already know to be a conman with several scams exposed: Trump university being the one I remember. Despite that record, he was elected Pres, and (although apologists predicted otherwise, with all that talk of "guardrails", and "growing into the office") didn't significantly change.
Since then he has pushed through the judges that have wrought the post-Roe-vs-Wade chaos now afflicting the US, with women being forced to carry non-viable fetuses to term. He is being indicted under 91 charges, has been found guilty of sexual assault, and of inciting an insurrection. The completely illegal anti-democratic fake electors scheme is now catching up with the GOP at multiple levels; most of the evidence is already in the public domain, although the courts have taken years to catch up with the crimes.

That's what's depressing to me when I see Trump ahead in the polls: that so many poll-responders say that they'd like more of the same: more lies, more nepotism, more corruption of the democratic process, please! 
 

No, they just want a lower cost of living and a President that doesn't lie to black people on the campaign trail that Thomas Edison didn't invent the lightbulb (and yes, Biden did do that). Also, seems silly to talk about nepotism when that's a built-in feature of basically every administration we've had since the early 1800's.  That problem doesn't go away by voting blue. 

At least when you vote red there's a chance you'll pay lower taxes next year, and to most people that's the main thing they think about when it comes time to cast a vote except in times of complete crisis (like being locked down by Covid-19).  The presidential election is always a referendum on the guy currently in power.  Saying the other guy is a threat to democracy only works on a very tiny % of people who don't have any actual opinions. They'll read a CNN headline and then go back to doing whatever it is they do during the day.

Democracy only matters when people feel like they have actual choices.  Trump leading Biden in all these major polls despite a ton of voters not liking either of them is a massive warning sign.  The death grip that the two major parties have on the electoral process in the U.S. is a legitimate problem that dwarfs practically everything else.

Picking out one lie doesn't give much of an overview, does it? Here's a graph I just found from Forbes:-

(https://imageio.forbes.com/specials-images/imageserve/60897a266db77b432ff39e3a/Percent-of-False-and-Truthful-Statements-During-the-First-100-Days-as-President-/960x0.png?format=png&width=1440)

That teaches me that Biden's record is WAY worse than I imagined: I assumed he was much more Obama Style.

As for your nepotism comment, I'm not really buying that until you remind me which of Obama's and Biden's children and in-laws were given the kind of access and power that Ivanka and Jared enjoyed in the White House.

"they just want a lower cost of living". Well, I have some news: prices never really go backwards for long. I also would like to go back to the time when a pint of beer in the UK cost one pound. Today's price is about five pounds I think, but I'm sensible enough not to blame that on today's Prime Minister.

I always like a graph to illustrate a point, because they have so much info in them. So here's one about the price of gasoline:-

 (https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/h_EyHQq79MdNfIyFUOaDaw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTY0MDtoPTQ2NQ--/https://media.zenfs.com/en/oilprice.com/74d9d02538edbf211735d1557d4cd60c)

Nothing here spells out that Trump can deliver on any Cost of Living promise, any more than he delivered on his "Mexicans will pay for the Wall" promise.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Dec 15, 2023, 04:35 PMDemocracy only matters when people feel like they have actual choices.  Trump leading Biden in all these major polls despite a ton of voters not liking either of them is a massive warning sign.  The death grip that the two major parties have on the electoral process in the U.S. is a legitimate problem that dwarfs practically everything else.

I think I must be in an argumentative mood, Nimbly, because I'm not sure I agree with this either. In the US, voters have always had a choice, even if it feels limited at times. AFAIK, usually their choices are Democrat, Republican or Other.
If there is "a legitimate problem that dwarfs practically everything else", it's not the dominance of the two major parties. A far bigger problem is this:-

Trump and the Republican party have demonstrated their contempt for the peaceful transition of power, and also for the right of every vote to count. Without those two processes being respected and protected, democracy dies, or becomes the sham that you can see in Russia and elsewhere. Between the 2020 election and Jan 6 Trump and the GOP made it clear that they didn't respect either of those processes, and if they are re-elected, we can assume that they will continue as they did before: substituting Fake Electors for the real ones, negating people's votes and refusing to leave office. It'll only take one more Trump victory for democracy to disappear from American politics, and that's when the US voter will understand the difference between "feel they don't have a choice" and actually not having a choice.

To quote Liz Cheney again, "America is sleepwalking towards an autocracy". Wake up while you still can, Nimbly ;)

Lisna, you realize that Americans on either side of the political aisle don't like Liz Cheney, right?  :laughing:

She's out and about talking to media pundits to promote her new book.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Dec 15, 2023, 05:41 PMI think I must be in an argumentative mood, Nimbly, because I'm not sure I agree with this either. In the US, voters have always had a choice, even if it feels limited at times. AFAIK, usually their choices are Democrat, Republican or Other.
If there is "a legitimate problem that dwarfs practically everything else", it's not the dominance of the two major parties. A far bigger problem is this:-

Trump and the Republican party have demonstrated their contempt for the peaceful transition of power, and also for the right of every vote to count. Without those two processes being respected and protected, democracy dies, or becomes the sham that you can see in Russia and elsewhere. Between the 2020 election and Jan 6 Trump and the GOP made it clear that they didn't respect either of those processes, and if they are re-elected, we can assume that they will continue as they did before: substituting Fake Electors for the real ones, negating people's votes and refusing to leave office. It'll only take one more Trump victory for democracy to disappear from American politics, and that's when the US voter will understand the difference between "feel they don't have a choice" and actually not having a choice.

To quote Liz Cheney again, "America is sleepwalking towards an autocracy". Wake up while you still can, Nimbly ;)

I like how you say all that but can't even admit that Big Tech censored the Hunter Biden laptop story to try to control the flow of information for the purposes of trying to minimize what independents would have wanted to know more about when deciding who to vote for back in 2020.

After the NY Post story came out, all the pro-Biden outlets and CNN and their ilk shouted loudly "Russian disinformation11!" and created a false narrative, only to take it back months and months later after the 2020 election was over and nobody was listening.  This is an irrefutable thing that happened, and you can't dance around it like it had no bearing whatsoever on anything that came afterward (like Jan. 6th).

If you don't agree with me about this, then I don't see how you can say you believe in democracy.  Every election is a referendum - Trump might have lost anyway even without interference, but I still find that legitimately way more undemocratic than whining about Trump saying he's going to sign executive orders "dictator" style Day 1.  CNN and MSNBC can soundbite him as much as they want - they don't really know what actual dictatorships look like.  Or maybe they don't remember all those executive orders Biden and Obama signed.  Either way, they're stupid AF.  Prior to Trump's win in 2016, he said he'd throw Hillary in jail and go after everyone that went after him.  And did he go after them? No.  He's always talked smack and hasn't changed at all.

January 6th is what you get when people, whether rightly or wrongly, feel their votes didn't really count or were minimized by bigger powers that decided some stories were worth pushing out there and others should be "discredited" because they were inconvenient.  Trump was wrong about voter fraud, but that's not really the point and that's what I'm trying to explain to you.

You can try to paint people you disagree with as faceless mobs all day long, but that's the result of that sort of dismissive approach you tend to lean into in these debates.  If the shoe had been on the other foot and Big Tech had tried to squash pro-Biden stories (and Trump got re-elected as a result), you'd have been praising any protests at the capitol that would have interrupted the "peaceful" transfer of power to Trump.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Dec 15, 2023, 05:41 PMTrump and the Republican party have demonstrated their contempt for the peaceful transition of power, and also for the right of every vote to count. Without those two processes being respected and protected, democracy dies, or becomes the sham that you can see in Russia and elsewhere. Between the 2020 election and Jan 6 Trump and the GOP made it clear that they didn't respect either of those processes, and if they are re-elected, we can assume that they will continue as they did before: substituting Fake Electors for the real ones, negating people's votes and refusing to leave office. It'll only take one more Trump victory for democracy to disappear from American politics, and that's when the US voter will understand the difference between "feel they don't have a choice" and actually not having a choice.

You know what the big takeaway for liberals and republicans should have been from the 2020 election controversy? It should have been that we in fact don't have a way to know if the election was fair or not. The election system is not completely auditable, and it's not completely transparent. If it was, there would be no room to question it. Unfortunately, liberals bury their head in the sand and say ridiculous things like: "It was the most secure election in American history", while MAGA Republicans decry that it was stolen and neither can show you the proof either way. Instead we get a bunch of useless political grandstanding and finger-pointing: "You stole the election!", "Oh yeah, well you're a mean authoritarian who wants to destroy our democracy!". In 2020, we realized that basically all of our institutions are corrupt - our media, our pharmaceutical companies, our government, our social media companies, our news organizations, etc. But our election systems are the one thing that's completely secure and in no way corrupt?  :laughing:

If Republicans and Democrats actually cared about transparency in the elections, they'd be hammering home that we need election/voting reform and we need to find a way to make the system auditable and transparent such that there's no doubt on the outcomes, but that isn't happening with either party. And it won't happen, because this election/voting system we have now is what resulted in all of them being elected, so why would they want to change/improve it? A recent survey by Rasmussen doesn't exactly instill me with confidence as an American citizen in our elections:

One-in-Five Mail-In Voters Admit They Cheated in 2020 Election (https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/one_in_five_mail_in_voters_admit_they_cheated_in_2020_election)

Quote from: SGR on Dec 15, 2023, 07:36 PMYou know what the big takeaway for liberals and republicans should have been from the 2020 election controversy? It should have been that we in fact don't have a way to know if the election was fair or not. The election system is not completely auditable, and it's not completely transparent. If it was, there would be no room to question it. Unfortunately, liberals bury their head in the sand and say ridiculous things like: "It was the most secure election in American history", while MAGA Republicans decry that it was stolen and neither can show you the proof either way. Instead we get a bunch of useless political grandstanding and finger-pointing: "You stole the election!", "Oh yeah, well you're a mean authoritarian who wants to destroy our democracy!". In 2020, we realized that basically all of our institutions are corrupt - our media, our pharmaceutical companies, our government, our social media companies, our news organizations, etc. But our election systems are the one thing that's completely secure and in no way corrupt?  :laughing:

If Republicans and Democrats actually cared about transparency in the elections, they'd be hammering home that we need election/voting reform and we need to find a way to make the system auditable and transparent such that there's no doubt on the outcomes, but that isn't happening with either party. And it won't happen, because this election/voting system we have now is what resulted in all of them being elected, so why would they want to change/improve it? A recent survey by Rasmussen doesn't exactly instill me with confidence as an American citizen in our elections:

One-in-Five Mail-In Voters Admit They Cheated in 2020 Election (https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/one_in_five_mail_in_voters_admit_they_cheated_in_2020_election)

Yep, not to mention the fact (and I've debated this with Lisna before) that Democrats are the ones who have been cultivating doubt in our election systems since the late 90s. Even getting them to agree about something like Voter ID is like pulling teeth.  Trump just saw an opportunity after 4 years of the media accusing him of being a "fake" President to give them a taste of their own medicine, and here we are.

The U.S. has a ton of issues, but one of the easiest things to do would be to lower the bar significantly to allow 3rd party or completely independent candidates to get on the national ballots for POTUS.  Every election doesn't need to be a race to the bottom between two parties - we can let people stand or fall on their own merits.  Until this change is made though, I'd argue we don't really have an actual democracy in the truest sense of the word anyway.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Dec 15, 2023, 11:13 PMYep, not to mention the fact (and I've debated this with Lisna before) that Democrats are the ones who have been cultivating doubt in our election systems since the late 90s. Even getting them to agree about something like Voter ID is like pulling teeth.  Trump just saw an opportunity after 4 years of the media accusing him of being a "fake" President to give them a taste of their own medicine, and here we are.

The U.S. has a ton of issues, but one of the easiest things to do would be to lower the bar significantly to allow 3rd party or completely independent candidates to get on the national ballots for POTUS.  Every election doesn't need to be a race to the bottom between two parties - we can let people stand or fall on their own merits.  Until this change is made though, I'd argue we don't really have an actual democracy in the truest sense of the word anyway.

Yeah, I don't understand it. I don't understand how honest Democrats could look at how they were lied to about 'Trump-Russia' collusion for years (financed by Hillary), the 'fine people on both sides' hoax, the 'drinking bleach' hoax, the Covington Kids hoax, the COVID-19 origins coverup/censorship, the intelligence operation to get social media companies to censor news about Hunter Biden's laptop, and the subsequent censorship involved with questioning the election and still believe these people are 'the good guys'; The ones 'valiantly fighting for Democracy'.  :laughing:

Both parties have been corrupt and despicable for a long time, it's the whole reason why Bernie and Trump were so popular. And they won't make it easier for third party candidates to gain a footing or a voice because then they'd have to give up control. Almost everyone from each party plays for the same team, similar donors, only slightly different agendas. War is popular with both parties, for example. Let no good crisis go to waste. I'd love to see the media give attention to both Green and Libertarians. Put them all on the debate stage and let them have at it. I love America, but I think we can do better - and it starts with giving people more than a binary choice. Let people decide - based on the free marketplace of ideas who is best suited to lead this country. It's looking now like we'll have to decide between a septuagenarian and an octagenarian - we've taken a wrong turn somewhere, that's all I'm saying.

Thanks for your long responses, Nimbly and SGR. Unfortunately I have limited time both now and in the week ahead as I am flying to England tomorrow.
However , I have a quick answer to these two comments:

Quote from: SGR on Dec 15, 2023, 06:14 PMLisna, you realize that Americans on either side of the political aisle don't like Liz Cheney, right?  :laughing:

She's out and about talking to media pundits to promote her new book.

^ Yes, I'm well aware that she's not popular, but also I'm aware that being right and being popular are not the same thing. I'd put C Christie on the debate stage recently in the same "Right but not popular " category.

Quote from: SGR on Dec 15, 2023, 07:36 PMYou know what the big takeaway for liberals and republicans should have been from the 2020 election controversy? It should have been that we in fact don't have a way to know if the election was fair or not. The election system is not completely auditable, and it's not completely transparent. If it was, there would be no room to question it. Unfortunately, liberals bury their head in the sand and say ridiculous things like: "It was the most secure election in American history", while MAGA Republicans decry that it was stolen and neither can show you the proof either way. Instead we get a bunch of useless political grandstanding and finger-pointing: "You stole the election!", "Oh yeah, well you're a mean authoritarian who wants to destroy our democracy!". In 2020, we realized that basically all of our institutions are corrupt - our media, our pharmaceutical companies, our government, our social media companies, our news organizations, etc. But our election systems are the one thing that's completely secure and in no way corrupt?  :laughing:

If Republicans and Democrats actually cared about transparency in the elections, they'd be hammering home that we need election/voting reform and we need to find a way to make the system auditable and transparent such that there's no doubt on the outcomes, but that isn't happening with either party. And it won't happen, because this election/voting system we have now is what resulted in all of them being elected, so why would they want to change/improve it? A recent survey by Rasmussen doesn't exactly instill me with confidence as an American citizen in our elections:

One-in-Five Mail-In Voters Admit They Cheated in 2020 Election (https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/one_in_five_mail_in_voters_admit_they_cheated_in_2020_election)

I think the bold is either not true or a mis-representation of the facts. Fact: the Republicans had how many months was it to come up with evidence of significant fraud.They went to court about 60 times to show fraud and each case was rejected for lack of evidence. Even Giulliani said "We have theories, but no evidence" and has been convicted of defamation for alleging fraud that wasn't there. There were countless audits by Ninja Turtle Charlatan Group among others: again no evidence of fraud. It was one of the most observed, double checked elections that I've ever followed on the news, and to say "if it was completely auditable, completely transparent there would be no room to question it" suggests that you've missed the whole
Roger Stone/Steve Bannon/ Donald Trump strategy: throw enough doubts/confusion/bs at an issue, and people won't feel capable of trusting the evidence. But the evidence is there, 60 to zero in the law courts.

Your article: yes, those look like high percentages of mail-in misconduct, which clearly could be improved on. But those figures don't show all the misconduct favouring one candidate, so they can't be counted as a result-changing reason to chuck the election results out, though a policy of "do better next time" would be a good idea. To me, that's more in the nature of the democratic ideal getting fudged in its application, so goes along with gerrymandering and the whole lopsided thing about states, their populations and the numbers of representatives they send to the Capitol. Lots of room for improvement in the US election process, but not enough to reject it wholesale, imo. MAGA want to do that because Trump is the worst loser in American history. 

Quote from: SGR on Dec 15, 2023, 11:54 PMthe 'fine people on both sides' hoax, the 'drinking bleach' hoax,

^ In haste, but not in anger, SGR, but what is this ?! There is video evidence: Trump said both of those things - though perhaps it wasn't specifically "drinking" the bleach: he wanted that doctor to work out the details of exactly how the bleach got to the lungs.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Dec 16, 2023, 01:05 AMI think the bold is either not true or a mis-representation of the facts. Fact: the Republicans had how many months was it to come up with evidence of significant fraud.They went to court about 60 times to show fraud and each case was rejected for lack of evidence. Even Giulliani said "We have theories, but no evidence" and has been convicted of defamation for alleging fraud that wasn't there. There were countless audits by Ninja Turtle Charlatan Group among others: again no evidence of fraud. It was one of the most observed, double checked elections that I've ever followed on the news, and to say "if it was completely auditable, completely transparent there would be no room to question it" suggests that you've missed the whole
Roger Stone/Steve Bannon/ Donald Trump strategy: throw enough doubts/confusion/bs at an issue, and people won't feel capable of trusting the evidence. But the evidence is there, 60 to zero in the law courts.

Thanks for the response Lisna, but I disagree. Most of these court cases were rejected on 'standing'. This means that the party filing the case doesn't have 'sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case'. The courts didn't look at the evidence or arguments provided in these cases, they (for the most part) simply rejected them, based on the merit of the litigant. The courts not looking at the evidence and rejecting the case entirely doesn't mean that the cases had no credibility.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Dec 16, 2023, 01:05 AMYour article: yes, those look like high percentages of mail-in misconduct, which clearly could be improved on. But those figures don't show all the misconduct favouring one candidate, so they can't be counted as a result-changing reason to chuck the election results out, though a policy of "do better next time" would be a good idea. To me, that's more in the nature of the democratic ideal getting fudged in its application, so goes along with gerrymandering and the whole lopsided thing about states, their populations and the numbers of representatives they send to the Capitol. Lots of room for improvement in the US election process, but not enough to reject it wholesale, imo. MAGA want to do that because Trump is the worst loser in American history. 

You're right, they show a fairly equal amount of misconduct among supporters of both parties. But per the bolded, you believe in the integrity of the electoral/voting systems of the US. And yet, you still seem to believe that somehow, this system of governance, along with its many checks and balances, would collapse if Trump gets re-elected, and a dictatorship would inevitably ensue. It seems like a bit of a dichotomy to me.

All that said, enjoy your time in England!  :D

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Dec 16, 2023, 01:08 AM^ In haste, but not in anger, SGR, but what is this ?! There is video evidence: Trump said both of those things - though perhaps it wasn't specifically "drinking" the bleach: he wanted that doctor to work out the details of exactly how the bleach got to the lungs.

Lisna, the 'fine people' thing is a well proven hoax. The media implied that he was talking about the neo-nazis and racists because they clipped out the part where he said after: "and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally" - and pretended like that didn't happen.

Source: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/15/full-text-trump-comments-white-supremacists-alt-left-transcript-241662

This kind of selective editing was common in news media during the Trump administration, and if you don't get exposed to other news sources, you'd be none the wiser.

As for the other one, he was referring to a disinfectant via exposure of ultraviolet light in the body, the media simply took 'disinfectant' to mean bleach and ran with that. He wasn't talking about bleach, and if you think he was, that's a prime indicator that you need to check yourself on what you think you know, and what media sources you consume and trust.

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/07/13/fact-check-did-trump-tell-people-to-drink-bleach-to-kill-coronavirus/113754708/

The funny thing about that "bleach hoax" is that there actually was (and still is) ongoing research being done out there to use UV to treat Covid-19 inside the body.  The media ridiculed Trump for saying it, but they were making it sound like it wasn't a thing when in fact it is.

Cedars Sinai - Reduced Viral Loads Seen in COVID-19 Patients Treated With UVA Light (https://www.cedars-sinai.org/newsroom/reduced-viral-loads-seen-in-covid-19-patients-treated-with-uva-light/)

The reaction of very rational and not at all hyperbolic media to the possibility of Trump being reelected:

https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1734679864152625626

(https://aph.org.au/wp-content/uploads/sites/55/2020/11/Hitler-Trump2.gif)

Quote from: SGR on Dec 16, 2023, 01:23 AMAs for the other one, he was referring to a disinfectant via exposure of ultraviolet light in the body, the media simply took 'disinfectant' to mean bleach and ran with that. He wasn't talking about bleach, and if you think he was, that's a prime indicator that you need to check yourself on what you think you know, and what media sources you consume and trust.

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/07/13/fact-check-did-trump-tell-people-to-drink-bleach-to-kill-coronavirus/113754708/

He might not have been talking about Bleach but do you know how many of his followers thought he was? Along with the Ivermentin stuff.

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Dec 17, 2023, 10:09 PM

Trump says immigrants are 'poisoning the blood of our country.' Biden campaign likens comments to Hitler. (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-says-immigrants-are-poisoning-blood-country-biden-campaign-liken-rcna130141)

lol those honestly do sound like Hitler esque comments.  Poisoning the blood of our country? That could easily be a Hitler quote.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Dec 17, 2023, 10:51 AMHe might not have been talking about Bleach but do you know how many of his followers thought he was? Along with the Ivermentin stuff.

If there's a reliable survey/poll on the party split between who believed that he was talking about bleach and who didn't, I'm not aware of it. That said, who do you think is more likely to have believed he was talking about bleach? His supporters who would consume more right-wing media that would be more favorable to Trump and thus more likely to debunk the lie, or people who oppose Trump who are more likely to consume the left-wing media that started the lie to begin with?

"Trump will end Democracy!"

As they quietly remove the ability to vote for Trump from the ballot.

Colorado supreme court disqualifies Trump from state's 2024 ballot (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/19/trump-colorado-presidential-ballot-disqualified-14th-amendment)

They have more balls than I thought (though if Trump goes away I think the momentum and backlash is only going to help whoever the Republicans end up making their nominee).  Let's see how it plays out.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Dec 20, 2023, 03:40 AMThey have more balls than I thought (though if Trump goes away I think the momentum and backlash is only going to help whoever the Republicans end up making their nominee).  Let's see how it plays out.

I don't know if I agree. If Haley or Desantis end up becoming the nominee, I have doubts Trump supporters will vote for them - more likely they'd write in Trump, would be my guess (or stay home).

Quote from: SGR on Dec 20, 2023, 02:25 AM"Trump will end Democracy!"

As they quietly remove the ability to vote for Trump from the ballot.

Colorado supreme court disqualifies Trump from state's 2024 ballot (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/19/trump-colorado-presidential-ballot-disqualified-14th-amendment)

I mean I'm torn on this.

If you actually believe in "democracy," as defined in our country,  that would also mean abiding by the constitution. Which is what they are purportedly doing.


But I also think from a pragmatic pov, removing him from the ballot will be problematic. It will make it seem like he was just being slienced by the deep state. There's not a clear easy answer to this. Hopefully if it's confined to this one state, it will be inconsequential anyway.  But I think we are teetering on the edge of outright political instability more and more with each election cycle.  It remains to be seen what this one has in store for us.

Quote from: SGR on Dec 20, 2023, 02:25 AM"Trump will end Democracy!"

As they quietly remove the ability to vote for Trump from the ballot.

Colorado supreme court disqualifies Trump from state's 2024 ballot (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/19/trump-colorado-presidential-ballot-disqualified-14th-amendment)

What does this even mean? I feel like the federal US Supreme court would just appeal it and it's meaningless and he will still be on the ballot.

Quote from: Jwb on Dec 20, 2023, 05:22 AMBut I also think from a pragmatic pov, removing him from the ballot will be problematic. It will make it seem like he was just being slienced by the deep state. There's not a clear easy answer to this. Hopefully if it's confined to this one state, it will be inconsequential anyway.  But I think we are teetering on the edge of outright political instability more and more with each election cycle.  It remains to be seen what this one has in store for us.

Only the people in the Cult of Trump would see this as him being silenced by the deep state. Who cares about those lunatics? If they want to start a Civil War over it with their militias then go right ahead. I hope they do so that they can see how outdated that concept is when the US military comes in and absolutely crushes them lol.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Dec 20, 2023, 12:28 PMWhat does this even mean? I feel like the federal US Supreme court would just appeal it and it's meaningless and he will still be on the ballot.

I'm just pointing out what I see as hypocrisy. Many Democrats (but not all, if that even needs to be said) have claimed that the re-election of Trump will be the 'end of Democracy'. And now, an all-Democrat state Supreme Court axes him from the Republican ballot in their state.

To JWB's point, legal scholar Jonathan Turley said:

'The Colorado Supreme Court has handed down the most anti-democratic opinion in decades. Yet, these justices barred voters from being [able] to vote for their preferred candidate in the name of democracy. It is like burning down a house in the name of fire safety.

This country is a powder keg, and this court is just throwing matches at it...My first impression remains that same. The court is dead wrong in my view... ...It is striking that the court relies on Schenck v. U.S., where the Court upheld the denial of core free speech rights of a socialist opposing a war. The opinion of the Colorado Supreme Court is so sweeping that it would allow for tit-for-tat removals of candidates from ballots.'

This is the first time in history section 3 of the 14th amendment has been used to eliminate a presidential candidate from the ballot. To your point, it's likely that this will be appealed to the Supreme Court and they'll rule on it, one way or another. But I think this creates precedent for other states, and Colorado won't be the only state to attempt this. Colorado will likely be won by Biden (or whoever the Dem candidate is), so if it is entirely contained to this state, it won't make much of a difference - but I'm doubtful it will be solely contained to this state. That being said, the message of the decision itself is striking.

Going by the logic of Colorado's Supreme Court, Maxine Waters and others who represent their states should have been removed from the ballot completely for re-election when they had speeches and did social media posts and even told BLM protestors to "fight like hell" and so on and so forth.  Federal property got damaged in some cities as a result of those riots and people got hurt. So if incitement or encouragement of any kind that could lead to political violence falls under Section 3, then they're going to have to apply that standard to everyone.  Clearly it hasn't been applied fairly up 'til now based on their own explanation.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Dec 20, 2023, 04:43 PMGoing by the logic of Colorado's Supreme Court, Maxine Waters and others who represent their states should have been removed from the ballot completely for re-election when they had speeches and did social media posts and even told BLM protestors to "fight like hell" and so on and so forth.  Federal property got damaged in some cities as a result of those riots and people got hurt. So if incitement or encouragement of any kind that could lead to political violence falls under Section 3, then they're going to have to apply that standard to everyone.  Clearly it hasn't been applied fairly up 'til now based on their own explanation.

The BLM riots and the riots on the Capitol are two different beasts. I do kind of side with your point that if you incite a riot no matter which side it's for that there should be a punishment in the same way like she shouldn't have been eligible for re-election if it caused federal damage but it's not even on the same playing field at all whatsoever.

BFFR!!!

Quote from: SGR on Dec 20, 2023, 02:57 PMTo JWB's point, legal scholar Jonathan Turley said:

'The Colorado Supreme Court has handed down the most anti-democratic opinion in decades. Yet, these justices barred voters from being [able] to vote for their preferred candidate in the name of democracy. It is like burning down a house in the name of fire safety.

You know why that's a bad example?

the whole burning down a house in the name of fire safety. No it's more like arresting an arsonist before they have a chance to even burn down the house in the first place in the name of fire safety.   It does seem a bit nanny state to prevent voters from voting for their preferred candidate but when their preferred candidate has done illegal shit, he shouldn't be allowed to be on the ballot to overturn democracy from the inside out. That's basically what he wants to do. He wants to be the King of the US not a president. He wants to just be in office and do whatever the fuck he wants to do without being punished for it and then try to turn around and play coy like he didn't know what the fuck he was doing.

Fuck outta here and Fuck Trump.

If he ends up getting kicked off all the ballots permanently, so be it.  Just saying, it hasn't been applied fairly. I don't think it's the slam dunk that Democrats seem to think it is from a public perception standpoint.  And although none of them are saying it out loud, all the other Republican nominees are jumping for joy because it will galvanize potential GOP voters in a way that will make 2016 look like a slow day at Wal-Mart.  If Trump loses the nomination as a possible outcome to all this, it's gonna be huge for anyone gunning for 2nd place right now.

I guess the thing I'm quibbling with here is that Section 3 is supposed to be a real high bar to clear for people who show up and lead actual action against the government, not something you throw out there because X person said to protest Y.  Trump isn't Jefferson Davis, and he needs to be dealt with on insurrection-related stuff in a court of law and be 1000% convicted of it if the case is that clear-cut.  Taking him off the ballots like this is one of the most undemocratic things I've seen happen since all the Patriot Act garbage from Bush's first term.

What the Colorado Supreme Court is insinuating is that any kind of violence or protest that "gets out of hand", even if not explicitly directed, is insurrection and it could apply to anything from a Tweet to a comment some politician made on CNN.  And this is happening before Trump has been actually convicted of anything. Is that a bar we want to lower in the long-term? We will just have to see.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Dec 20, 2023, 05:04 PMthe whole burning down a house in the name of fire safety. No it's more like arresting an arsonist before they have a chance to even burn down the house in the first place in the name of fire safety.  It does seem a bit nanny state to prevent voters from voting for their preferred candidate but when their preferred candidate has done illegal shit, he should be allowed to be on the ballot to overturn democracy from the inside out. That's basically what he wants to do. He wants to be the King of the US not a president. He wants to just be in office and do whatever the fuck he wants to do without being punished for it and then try to turn around and play coy like he didn't know what the fuck he was doing.

Fuck outta here and Fuck Trump.

As Nimbly rightly points out, he hasn't been convicted. These judges are putting the cart before the horse here. And it's an awful, awful precedent to set. It reeks of desperation, and will probably make Trump's poll numbers go up.

Quote from: SGR on Dec 20, 2023, 02:57 PMI'm just pointing out what I see as hypocrisy. Many Democrats (but not all, if that even needs to be said) have claimed that the re-election of Trump will be the 'end of Democracy'. And now, an all-Democrat state Supreme Court axes him from the Republican ballot in their state.

I don't see the hypocrisy.

If they believe Trump represents a threat to democracy based on the idea he attempted to stage a coup, then trying preclude him from the ballot using this means is actually perfectly consistent with that premise.  In fact it's the most consistent thing they could possibly do.

If the objection is just that the mere idea of removing ballot access from any candidate seems "undemocratic," then really your problem is with the constitution.  Because that is what section 3 of the 14th Amendment is designed for.

More likely,  the dispute will be over whether Trump in fact committed an act of insurrection. Which this court seems to have upheld but it's highly questionable that if keeps going up the pipeline to the SC, that this court is ever going to rule against Trump. 

Quote from: Jwb on Dec 23, 2023, 02:40 AMI don't see the hypocrisy.

If they believe Trump represents a threat to democracy based on the idea he attempted to stage a coup, then trying preclude him from the ballot using this means is actually perfectly consistent with that premise.  In fact it's the most consistent thing they could possibly do.

If the objection is just that the mere idea of removing ballot access from any candidate seems "undemocratic," then really your problem is with the constitution.  Because that is what section 3 of the 14th Amendment is designed for.

More likely,  the dispute will be over whether Trump in fact committed an act of insurrection. Which this court seems to have upheld but it's highly questionable that if keeps going up the pipeline to the SC, that this court is ever going to rule against Trump. 

That's fair. I'd say that I'm not convinced as of yet that Trump actually committed an act of insurrection. I don't think it's been truly demonstrated. And I'm also not convinced that section 3 of the 14th amendment applies to presidential candidates even if he did.

Only a true insurrectionist would tell people to "peacefully protest" before anyone marched to the capitol and then later tweet it again later the same day. Telling people to do things peacefully - a strategy straight out of Hitler's playbook. Telling people to protest peacefully is how you get death camps.

(https://www.thebulwark.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/tweet238.jpg)

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Dec 23, 2023, 04:42 AMOnly a true insurrectionist would tell people to "peacefully protest" before anyone marched to the capitol and then later tweet it again later the same day. Telling people to do things peacefully - a strategy straight out of Hitler's playbook. Telling people to protest peacefully is how you get death camps.

(https://www.thebulwark.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/tweet238.jpg)

Yeah, he said one thing in person but when on twitter to say to protest peacefully so that he has a record of himself NOT inciting but in this day and age with everyone having cameras that doesn't work. He was recorded inciting the riots. Also, it's disingenuous as fuck to compare Maxine Waters to what he did.

He is inciting people to overthrow the fucking government. It's kind of funny that Trump Supporters are all about "mah rights mah rights" and the constitution until it doesn't go their way then they want to overthrow the fucking government that contains said constitution. Brain washed zombies.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Dec 23, 2023, 11:32 AMAlso, it's disingenuous as fuck to compare Maxine Waters to what he did.

Not at all. When it comes to making the case that violence happens as a result of a public figure's words, why is Trump at fault but others who "incite" are not?

If rioters burn down federal buildings, they're trying to push for a political outcome through violence, no? They read and watch things to justify their actions. Whether that's a specific message or a generalized thing (2017 - "I will go and take Trump out tonight", 2021 - "get more confrontational" - Maxine Waters).  So the only reason she isn't in jail is because there's no widespread political incentive among her peers to make an example out of her.  Same cynical thought process is why they still haven't done anything substantial about Bob Menendez.  They can cry me a river over Trump in the meantime.

The main point, however, is if all of this is so clear cut and obvious, he should already be in jail over all the fake electors stuff, which to me is a way more logical focus point yet even that seems like they are having difficulties legally moving on those things.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Dec 23, 2023, 11:32 AMYeah, he said one thing in person but when on twitter to say to protest peacefully so that he has a record of himself NOT inciting but in this day and age with everyone having cameras that doesn't work.

That's a pretty massive misreading of the guy's thought process (or lack thereof). You think Trump was reading cue cards to specifically use the word peaceful and/or thought it out beforehand? The guy who throws out teleprompter scripts and has the reading comprehension of a 1st grader?  Jack Smith should be taking notes here.

Zeroing in on his speech prior to people marching to the capitol or his Tweets is not something you are going to win debates on.  He said peaceful on more than one occasion.  That's two or possibly three more times than Maxine Waters did...which in her case was zero. You can't discount that and say it didn't matter, because it does matter when you are trying to paint somebody as the modern day Jefferson Davis. 

I watched all that same speeches you and everyone else did - you might have a case for throwing Giuliani under the bus for revving up the crowds that day, but Trump made it very clear he wanted peaceful protest in spite of what Rudy or others wanted.

As I've said on other occasions over the past few years: not the best hill to die on if you really want to get Trump because it opens up doors that are worse for democracy once they are open than what you see today.  You might think you'd like to lower that bar, but I guarantee you actually don't.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Dec 23, 2023, 11:32 AMIt's kind of funny that Trump Supporters are all about "mah rights mah rights" and the constitution until it doesn't go their way then they want to overthrow the fucking government that contains said constitution. Brain washed zombies.

That's not what it was about, but you are free to hold that view if you want.

For what it's worth, I think 99.9% of all protests, "peaceful" or not, are a waste of time as far as the U.S. goes anyway, including January 6th.  If you showed up for that and decided to enter the capitol building, you can't blame anyone but yourself when you get a life sentence or something close to it.

Quote from: SGR on Dec 23, 2023, 02:49 AMThat's fair. I'd say that I'm not convinced as of yet that Trump actually committed an act of insurrection. I don't think it's been truly demonstrated. And I'm also not convinced that section 3 of the 14th amendment applies to presidential candidates even if he did.

Why wouldn't it apply to the president but it would apply to congress? I know that was the initial ruling by that one judge, and I honestly didn't really understand that.  I'm not a lawyer, so I obviously realize there's usually some technical legal aspect I'm unaware of.  But on face value I don't see why they would create section 3 just to prevent an insurrectionist from getting into congress,  but somehow it's OK for that person to be president? That's very counterintuitive to say the least. 

I do think Jan 6 was an attempted coup. But exactly what counts as an act of insurrection is not strictly defined in section 3. Nor is it made apparent who is to determine whether said individual meets whatever threshold is being applied. That's all unclear,  is my understanding. The reason this section exists is because in the aftermath of the civil war,  it was to prevent certain confederates from being able to run from office.  While I do maintain Jan 6 was an attempted coup, I don't see it as quite as clear cut as literally taking up arms and fighting for the confederacy.  That's about as clear cut as it gets. 

The fact we haven't seen this tactic used since then is in my understanding because there hasn't been a case anywhere close to this either.  The novelty runs both ways.  @Nimbly9  you can't seriously sit here and put forth the idea of politicians inciting BLM riots as your counter example without realizing precisely how weak that counter example is and how well that demonstrates the apparent lack of any other real examples where we can point to similar dynamics as Jan 6. The problem is not the inciting the riot or even targeting government infrastructure.  The charge of insurrection on Jan 6 rests on the idea that the objective was to try to in some way overturn the results and prevent Biden from being sworn in. 

Quote from: Jwb on Dec 23, 2023, 06:54 PMThe charge of insurrection on Jan 6 rests on the idea that the objective was to try to in some way overturn the results and prevent Biden from being sworn in. 

An objective which is undermined by asking for peaceful protest in any way.  Words matter - for every thing they point to "Trump said X" as an argument that he plotted something nefarious, you can easily point to other things he said and make a counterargument.  Going by how things actually transpired, it makes more sense to conclude that Trump thought a giant crowd yelling and protesting outside of the capitol would put pressure on Pence or others to delay or open up legal avenues to delay election certification. Because that's all that Trump cares about - being vindicated that the election was stolen and showing off his big crowds in the process.  So at this point he's just a more insolent Al Gore.

Nobody has the power to mind control crowds to break into a place or cause damage or do anything. My point still stands, which is why I think Trump is more likely to be convicted over the fake electors business because that's a lot more clear cut to me.  If you can't make the case there, I don't see how you have a case with Jan 6th when the people who actually deviated from the "peaceful" protesting have been thrown into prison.

Lol. I really don't think we need to rehash our Jan 6 debate right now do we? I feel like every point you are bringing up are things we have already previously discussed to death.  The ultimate point is that is the nature of the accusation. Your counter examples don't even come close to being relevant.

Lol.  We'll just have to see how it all shakes out.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Dec 23, 2023, 03:06 PMI watched all those same speeches you and everyone else did - you might have a case for throwing Giuliani under the bus for revving up the crowds that day, but Trump made it very clear he wanted peaceful protest in spite of what Rudy or others wanted.

Yeah, because saying you have the show strength, and you have to be strong is the same thing as saying let's march down there peacefully. You really think Trump supporters are going to decipher the different between the two when they are already riled up.

Well they did a lot more than "cheer", so their ability to listen is questionable.  :laughing:

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Dec 23, 2023, 07:29 PMLol.  We'll just have to see how it all shakes out.

like i said, if it goes to the SC i can't imagine they're going to keep Trump off the ballot.

:laughing:

Quote from: SGR on Dec 20, 2023, 02:57 PMBut I think this creates precedent for other states, and Colorado won't be the only state to attempt this. Colorado will likely be won by Biden (or whoever the Dem candidate is), so if it is entirely contained to this state, it won't make much of a difference - but I'm doubtful it will be solely contained to this state. That being said, the message of the decision itself is striking.

Maine elections official disqualifies Trump from presidential primary ballot (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/maine-elections-official-disqualifies-trump-presidential-primary-ballot-2023-12-28/)

Yeah Federal is going to have to come and step in soon.

More and more states will start disqualifying him.

Michigan you absolute failures, they should have took him off the ballot too but they didn't

As we head into another election year, we should reflect back on Barack Obama's wise words.

I lol'd at Vince at the end,  but other than that I don't really know what the point of that video is supposed to be. Pretty underwhelming tbh.

Also my inner racist is triggered by the fact that Obama used the phrase "monkey around."

Quote from: Jwb on Dec 31, 2023, 10:16 PMI lol'd at Vince at the end,  but other than that I don't really know what the point of that video is supposed to be. Pretty underwhelming tbh.

It's a 2020 election joke that you can interpret at least two different ways.  I'll leave it at that.

It was hilarious.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Jan 01, 2024, 03:39 AMIt's a 2020 election joke that you can interpret at least two different ways.  I'll leave it at that.

Now that's a much better clip lol

Chris Christie "suspended" his presidential campaign today. :laughing:

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Jan 10, 2024, 11:40 PMChris Christie "suspended" his presidential campaign today. :laughing:

More time for McDonald's.

Better late than never, I hope:
I looked at the comments you made before Christmas, SGR, and as you took the trouble to write in some detail, I thought I'd return the compliment:-

Quote from: SGR on Dec 16, 2023, 01:18 AMThanks for the response Lisna, but I disagree. Most of these court cases were rejected on 'standing'. This means that the party filing the case doesn't have 'sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case'. The courts didn't look at the evidence or arguments provided in these cases, they (for the most part) simply rejected them, based on the merit of the litigant. The courts not looking at the evidence and rejecting the case entirely doesn't mean that the cases had no credibility.

^ It's true that I accepted the often-repeated statistic that 61 cases out of 62 found no evidence of fraud, when, as you say, most cases were dismissed on issues of standing. Nonetheless, on one website I found ten out of ten cases that looked at the arguments and found no significant fraud. If Trumpers were throwing cases at the courts without proper standing, then their usual policy of stirring up a bunch of smoke and doubts to confuse people backfired on them in this case, because a total of 62 cases filed doen't look good for them, as they have at most 1 court finding partially in their favour. 

Quote... you believe in the integrity of the electoral/voting systems of the US. And yet, you still seem to believe that somehow, this system of governance, along with its many checks and balances, would collapse if Trump gets re-elected, and a dictatorship would inevitably ensue. It seems like a bit of a dichotomy to me.

No dichotomy, SGR: as in many countries, the US democratic system more or less works, but that doesn't mean that it's not vulnerable to someone in power determined to dismantle it. I think today Hungary and Israel illustrate how that can happen, plus a zillion historical examples from Africa and Latin America.

Quote from: SGR on Dec 16, 2023, 01:23 AMLisna, the 'fine people' thing is a well proven hoax. The media implied that he was talking about the neo-nazis and racists because they clipped out the part where he said after: "and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally" - and pretended like that didn't happen.

Source: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/15/full-text-trump-comments-white-supremacists-alt-left-transcript-241662

This kind of selective editing was common in news media during the Trump administration, and if you don't get exposed to other news sources, you'd be none the wiser.

As for the other one, he was referring to a disinfectant via exposure of ultraviolet light in the body, the media simply took 'disinfectant' to mean bleach and ran with that. He wasn't talking about bleach, and if you think he was, that's a prime indicator that you need to check yourself on what you think you know, and what media sources you consume and trust.

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/07/13/fact-check-did-trump-tell-people-to-drink-bleach-to-kill-coronavirus/113754708/

I looked at your links, and enjoyed the dubious pleasure of reading Trump´s actual words. It's true that neither quote was quite as bad as the versions popularised by CNN and other news channels. As I conceded originally, he didn't actually say "drink bleach", but his suggestions about disinfectant were pretty irresponsible. As Nimbly pointed out, plenty of people took him to mean "drink disinfectant" and a whole bunch of cleaning supply companies had to issue statements about "Don't drink our product".

Bleach or Charlottesville, in both cases there has been selective editing, biased reporting, and as your links prove, accuracy and precise words matter. In that spirit, I feel you have used the wrong word to describe these controvertial news stories about Trump's declarations: the two news stories are not "hoaxes" because they are based on things that happened, even if those things were distorted in biased and inaccurate reporting. But a hoax is something different: something like the Pizzagate conspiracy or the Ruby Freeman USB memory stick - something that never existed at all.

It's something that bugs me about Trump: he is so quick to bring out labels like "hoax" and "fake news" that the whole issue of bias in the media isn't examined in the more nuanced way that it should be, with both sides agreeing that they are guilty and could do better. 

And yes, thanks SGR - I had a great time in the UK. I hope you had a good Christmas too. :)

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jan 11, 2024, 01:46 AMBetter late than never, I hope:
I looked at the comments you made before Christmas, SGR, and as you took the trouble to write in some detail, I thought I'd return the compliment:-

If Trumpers were throwing cases at the courts without proper standing, then their usual policy of stirring up a bunch of smoke and doubts to confuse people backfired on them in this case, because a total of 62 cases filed doen't look good for them, as they have at most 1 court finding partially in their favour. 

Per the bolded, this seems a little opinionated, as you're construing the purpose of these court filings to be to 'stir up a bunch of smoke and doubts to confuse people' rather than taking them in good faith at face value to be for the purpose of clearing up questions about the integrity of the election.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jan 11, 2024, 01:46 AMNo dichotomy, SGR: as in many countries, the US democratic system more or less works, but that doesn't mean that it's not vulnerable to someone in power determined to dismantle it. I think today Hungary and Israel illustrate how that can happen, plus a zillion historical examples from Africa and Latin America.

With all due respect, I don't really take comparisons of the United States to completely corrupt countries/governments in Latin America and Africa that seriously. Just because Idi Amin took power and abused it in Uganda doesn't teach us practically anything instructive or useful as to the risks the government of the US faces. As for Israel and Hungary, you'd have to explain more what you mean for me to properly respond - do you believe the systems of checks and balances in those countries is as strong as what we have in the United States?

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jan 11, 2024, 01:46 AMI looked at your links, and enjoyed the dubious pleasure of reading Trump´s actual words. It's true that neither quote was quite as bad as the versions popularised by CNN and other news channels. As I conceded originally, he didn't actually say "drink bleach", but his suggestions about disinfectant were pretty irresponsible. As Nimbly pointed out, plenty of people took him to mean "drink disinfectant" and a whole bunch of cleaning supply companies had to issue statements about "Don't drink our product".

Do you truly think most people took him to mean that based on what he actually said - or how the media reported on it? Who's really the 'irresponsible' party here? You don't think it's the media who had full access to what he said and still chose to completely misrepresent it?

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jan 11, 2024, 01:46 AMBleach or Charlottesville, in both cases there has been selective editing, biased reporting, and as your links prove, accuracy and precise words matter. In that spirit, I feel you have used the wrong word to describe these controvertial news stories about Trump's declarations: the two news stories are not "hoaxes" because they are based on things that happened, even if those things were distorted in biased and inaccurate reporting. But a hoax is something different: something like the Pizzagate conspiracy or the Ruby Freeman USB memory stick - something that never existed at all.

I don't think I've used the wrong word at all. Oxford defines hoax as (https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/hoax_1): "an act intended to make somebody believe something that is not true, especially something unpleasant". Whether it's bigfoot videos, videos of 'UFO's or political misrepresentations - to that end, all hoaxes are based on things that 'happened', otherwise, they'd gain no traction at all. The 'happened' part all depends on the context of how it's presented, we can even have video evidence of something 'happening' but the way it's presented is entirely fictional. Take the Covington Kids incident (https://nypost.com/2019/01/21/case-of-the-covington-kids-is-a-perfect-example-of-media-bias/) for example - the media reported it as a young and racist Trump supporter antagonizing a Native American - and we can even see the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAzxK1AwRX8), but the context of it was the exact opposite of what many media outlets reported. The Native American went up to him and his group and antagonized them. And thanks to the initial media representation of the matter, this young dude was branded as a racist, extremist, and a bigot. As a result, CNN settled a multi-million dollar lawsuit filed by him and his lawyer (https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1Z70DK/).

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jan 11, 2024, 01:46 AMIt's something that bugs me about Trump: he is so quick to bring out labels like "hoax" and "fake news" that the whole issue of bias in the media isn't examined in the more nuanced way that it should be, with both sides agreeing that they are guilty and could do better.

I'd argue that when Trump brings out those labels, he's giving a clear signal that he believes the media is lying, and often times they are (often by omission of details or context). But so many liberals and democrats are so accustomed to demonizing Trump or believing he always lies that they never consider he's telling the truth. As the cases I've brought up show, sometimes he is. (and to be fair, more Republicans and Trump supporters should be more skeptical of what he says - recent example being Trump saying Nikki Haley can't run for president because of her heritage - she was born in the United States so this claim is complete bullshit)

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jan 11, 2024, 01:46 AMAnd yes, thanks SGR - I had a great time in the UK. I hope you had a good Christmas too. :)

Glad to hear it buddy! I did have a good Christmas! And it's good to have you back on the forum!  :)

Quote from: SGR on Jan 11, 2024, 02:54 AMPer the bolded, this seems a little opinionated, as you're construing the purpose of these court filings to be to 'stir up a bunch of smoke and doubts to confuse people' rather than taking them in good faith at face value to be for the purpose of clearing up questions about the integrity of the election.

Yes, that's my opinion, SGR, based on things like Steve Bannon's pre-election declaration of intent to undermine the 2020 election result:-


...and although he doesn't specifically refer to lawsuits, Wikipedia does:-

QuoteBoth before and after the election, the campaign for incumbent president Donald Trump filed a number of lawsuits contesting election processes, vote counting, and the vote certification process in multiple states... Many cases were quickly dismissed, and lawyers and other observers noted that the lawsuits are not likely to have an effect on the outcome of the election. Trump, his supporters, and his attorneys asserted widespread election fraud in public statements.

The Trump campaign suffered several setbacks on November 13, 2020. The Department of Homeland Security released a statement saying that the election was the "most secure in American history" and that there was no evidence any voting systems malfunctioned.[33] Sixteen federal prosecutors assigned to monitor the election sent a letter to Attorney General William Barr saying there was no evidence of widespread irregularities. A law firm hired by the campaign in Pennsylvania quit amidst concerns they were being used to undermine the electoral process.

Four lawsuits orchestrated by conservative lawyer James Bopp in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania were dropped on November 16 after a federal appellate court said voters could not bring some constitutional claims.

Federal judges in Georgia and Michigan rejected last-ditch efforts by pro-Trump lawyer Sidney Powell to overturn the election results on December 7, 2020.[39] United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Judge Linda Parker wrote, "[T]his lawsuit seems to be less about achieving the relief Plaintiffs seek—as much of that relief is beyond the power of this Court—and more about the impact of their allegations on People's faith in the democratic process and their trust in our government." In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Judge Timothy Batten wrote, "They want this court to substitute its judgment for two-and-a-half million voters who voted for Joe Biden... And this I am unwilling to do."

^ Nothing above suggests to me a good faith clearing up of questions. That's why I agree with Judge Linda Parker:- "This lawsuit seems to be less about achieving the relief Plaintiffs seek ...and more about the impact of their allegations on People's faith in the democratic process and their trust in our government."

QuoteWith all due respect, I don't really take comparisons of the United States to completely corrupt countries/governments in Latin America and Africa that seriously. Just because Idi Amin took power and abused it in Uganda doesn't teach us practically anything instructive or useful as to the risks the government of the US faces. As for Israel and Hungary, you'd have to explain more what you mean for me to properly respond - do you believe the systems of checks and balances in those countries is as strong as what we have in the United States?

It's your choice if you decline to learn from comparisons, SGR. I find that in all kinds of situations, comparisons are a great way to get a more balanced perspective, a deeper understanding of the thing you are mainly focused on. I've done it with my job vs. other jobs, scientists have done it with our sun vs. other suns, buying this sofa vs. buying that sofa, etc, etc. No reason why we shouldn't apply the same approach to US politics, as authors Levitsky and Ziblatt make clear:-

QuoteDemocracies may die at the hands of elected leaders—presidents or prime ministers who subvert the very process that brought them to power...Democracy's erosion is, for many, almost imperceptible.

How vulnerable is American democracy to this form of backsliding? The foundations of our democracy are certainly stronger than those in Venezuela, Turkey, or Hungary. But are they strong enough?

Answering such a question requires stepping back from daily headlines and breaking news alerts to widen our view, drawing lessons from the experiences of other democracies around the world and throughout history.

Here's a link to an article they wrote for the American Academy In Berlin, from which the above quote is taken:  https://www.americanacademy.de/how-democracies-die/
The article explains way better than I can why international comparisons may be useful in building up a more complete, balanced picture of US politics today.

QuoteDo you truly think most people took him to mean that based on what he actually said - or how the media reported on it? Who's really the 'irresponsible' party here? You don't think it's the media who had full access to what he said and still chose to completely misrepresent it?

^ This point about the bleach remark is a good one! The media could have been more responsible and nipped the idea in the bud, but then half the media has a deer-in-the-headlights approach to Trump, and must have been wondering, as so many people did, "Is he saying we should ingest disinfectant? Better not say anything til Trump clarifies what he means."

QuoteI don't think I've used the wrong word at all. Oxford defines hoax as (https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/hoax_1): "an act intended to make somebody believe something that is not true, especially something unpleasant". Whether it's bigfoot videos, videos of 'UFO's or political misrepresentations - to that end, all hoaxes are based on things that 'happened', otherwise, they'd gain no traction at all. The 'happened' part all depends on the context of how it's presented, we can even have video evidence of something 'happening' but the way it's presented is entirely fictional.

.

I really can't agree with the bold, SGR. Some hoaxes are flat out not true (as your own quoted definition makes clear) and are not based on things that happened. Here's an example:-

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTtTlqz-bJnwv7Wn1AfQvE8pQnvA7UkG7XPGGU-pEqppQiQ1kh4eyRwdwrUH4Lxct8Zvxg&usqp=CAU)

QuoteI'd argue that when Trump brings out those labels, he's giving a clear signal that he believes the media is lying, and often times they are (often by omission of details or context). But so many liberals and democrats are so accustomed to demonizing Trump or believing he always lies that they never consider he's telling the truth. As the cases I've brought up show, sometimes he is. (and to be fair, more Republicans and Trump supporters should be more skeptical of what he says - recent example being Trump saying Nikki Haley can't run for president because of her heritage - she was born in the United States so this claim is complete bullshit)

^ It's true that Trump has a talent for talking in soundbites which has served him well, and words like "hoax" and fake" deliver his message in a quick, clear fashion. I still prefer a different style of speech myself.
I notice that you're honest enough to call out Trump's latest line about Nikki Haley, and for my part, in defence of the bold, I'd like to remind you of the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. In Trump's case, it's a better bet, statistically, to assume that he's lying. 

QuoteGlad to hear it buddy! I did have a good Christmas! And it's good to have you back on the forum!  :)

^ Thanks SGR. I appreciate that. :thumb:
I'm hoping that one day you and I might be back in the Album Club so we have a chance to swap opinions about music and not just politics, where we seem to be at rather opposite ends of the spectrum :(

"She's Arrogant, Conceited & Elitest" - Why Nikki Haley Thinks She's Better Than You

https://twitter.com/alfonsothrillfr/status/1746562185910784461?s=51

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Jan 12, 2024, 05:38 PM

"She's Arrogant, Conceited & Elitest" - Why Nikki Haley Thinks She's Better Than You

Resentful misogynist losers

Looks like Donnie just gave MLK the best birthday present ever

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GD7cPhgXcAAOQqv?format=jpg&name=small)

Trump easily wins Iowa caucus in historic landslide, urges unity to 'straighten out death and destruction' (https://nypost.com/2024/01/15/news/trump-wins-iowa-caucuses-in-landslide-first-election-of-2024/)

QuoteDES MOINES, Iowa — The first contest was no contest at all.

Former President Donald Trump won the Iowa caucus in a blowout Monday night — confirming his standing as the clear front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.

With 97% of the expected vote in, Trump had 51.1% support, followed by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (21.2%), former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (19.1%) and biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy (7.7%), who ended his campaign and gave Trump his support as the result became clear.

The 77-year-old Trump recorded the biggest margin of victory in the modern history of the Iowa GOP caucus, dating back to 1976, and become the first Republican candidate to get more than 50% support in a contested caucus.

So it's going to ultimately be Biden vs Trump vs RFK Jr. like I thought.  Bring it onnnnn!

Asa Hutchinson drops out of the 2024 presidential race (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/asa-hutchinson-drops-2024-presidential-race-rcna120626)


I guess I haven't been paying close enough attention to the Republican Presidential race, because I didn't know he was in it. :laughing:

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jan 11, 2024, 03:41 PMYes, that's my opinion, SGR, based on things like Steve Bannon's pre-election declaration of intent to undermine the 2020 election result:-

...and although he doesn't specifically refer to lawsuits, Wikipedia does:-
^ Nothing above suggests to me a good faith clearing up of questions. That's why I agree with Judge Linda Parker:- "This lawsuit seems to be less about achieving the relief Plaintiffs seek ...and more about the impact of their allegations on People's faith in the democratic process and their trust in our government."

That's fair - what was the context of that Bannon quote? He seemed mostly right on the money with what he said Trump would do - but I thought he didn't have any ties to the administration after his ousting - Trump calling him "Sloppy Steve", etc.

Regardless, all of this does lead to a larger point that we've discussed before - and that's election reform - and making the election completely transparent and auditable, which it is not currently. If it was, Republicans (and Democrats) wouldn't be able to cast doubts on the integrity of the election. My belief though is that neither party will do anything about it, because they got elected with the system as it currently is - so what would be their impetus to change it?

Here's a recent revelation in Virginia:

https://apnews.com/article/virginia-election-errors-biden-trump-6555f052332d06c83ef797852f81fa72

Quote from: 'AP News'A northern Virginia county is acknowledging that it underreported President Joe Biden's margin of victory over Donald Trump there in the 2020 presidential election by about 4,000 votes, the first detailed accounting of errors that came to light in 2022 as part of a criminal case.

We're still finding votes four years later, which proves they didn't know they were lost when the election was certified and that we have a system that can't even tell you if we've got all the votes and have counted them. Given that we have a system like that, how is that supposed to engender trust in 'our democracy' or our voting system?

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jan 11, 2024, 03:41 PMIt's your choice if you decline to learn from comparisons, SGR. I find that in all kinds of situations, comparisons are a great way to get a more balanced perspective, a deeper understanding of the thing you are mainly focused on. I've done it with my job vs. other jobs, scientists have done it with our sun vs. other suns, buying this sofa vs. buying that sofa, etc, etc. No reason why we shouldn't apply the same approach to US politics, as authors Levitsky and Ziblatt make clear:-
 

Here's a link to an article they wrote for the American Academy In Berlin, from which the above quote is taken:  https://www.americanacademy.de/how-democracies-die/
The article explains way better than I can why international comparisons may be useful in building up a more complete, balanced picture of US politics today.

I'm not declining to learn from comparisons. I'm simply stating I'm very skeptical of those comparisons because I believe the USA's system of governance, its checks and balances, its constitution, and its court systems are much more resilient to complete corruption or breakdown than say, countries in Latin America or Eastern Europe. I take those comparisons about as seriously as when Republicans warn we're turning into the Soviet Union or Communist China.

I've heard about that book before. Never read it - but taking a quick look at its Wikipedia entry:

Quote from: WikipediaThe book, which offers stark warnings about the impact of the Republican Party and Donald Trump's presidency on U.S. democracy, influenced Joe Biden prior to his decision to run in the 2020 U.S. presidential election.
...
...
In an interview, Levitsky identifies two objectives of the book: one is defeating Trump and the other is shoring up our democracy.

Suffice it to say, Levitsky may have valid or compelling arguments in the book, but knowing it comes from a place of bias, even with the stated goal of defeating a political candidate, makes it difficult to take at face value. If he didn't want that bias to leak out, he should've said its stated goal was something to the effect of 'to better inform the public so that they can make the best voting decisions'.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jan 11, 2024, 03:41 PM^ This point about the bleach remark is a good one! The media could have been more responsible and nipped the idea in the bud, but then half the media has a deer-in-the-headlights approach to Trump, and must have been wondering, as so many people did, "Is he saying we should ingest disinfectant? Better not say anything til Trump clarifies what he means."

I think you're perhaps giving journalists and reporters a bit too much grace. It's supposed to be their job to seek clarification, to look at the set of facts they have, transcripts, video, etc and then give people the facts with accurate reporting. Not to wait around until clarification comes (if it does come), and in the meantime, write completely sensationalized articles to increase their bottom line and drive clicks (which is why they do it). To be critical of Trump, he often times speaks off the cuff, unscripted - and that was not what was needed during the COVID-19 pandemic - and Trump's eventual response to this media criticism that he was 'being sarcastic' was shortsighted - he seemed to want to be rid of the whole matter instead of fighting it (like he normally does). But the media was doing this kind of stuff long before COVID-19 (e.g. the 'calling nazis fine people' lie). Here's Trump's transcript about the light disinfectant that led the media to suggest he was talking about injecting bleach - you can clearly see he's not talking about bleach here, but if you remove the context, and just focus on 'injection' and 'disinfectant', obviously it would be easy to mislead the public about what he was suggesting, and that's what happened:

QuoteTrump, April 23: A question that probably some of you are thinking of if you're totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it's ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn't been checked, but you're going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you're going to test that too. Sounds interesting, right? And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it'd be interesting to check that. So that you're going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we'll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That's pretty powerful.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jan 11, 2024, 03:41 PMI really can't agree with the bold, SGR. Some hoaxes are flat out not true (as your own quoted definition makes clear) and are not based on things that happened. Here's an example:-



^ It's true that Trump has a talent for talking in soundbites which has served him well, and words like "hoax" and fake" deliver his message in a quick, clear fashion. I still prefer a different style of speech myself.
I notice that you're honest enough to call out Trump's latest line about Nikki Haley, and for my part, in defence of the bold, I'd like to remind you of the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. In Trump's case, it's a better bet, statistically, to assume that he's lying. 

I understand what you mean - some hoaxes are completely baseless (e.g. a pact between Trump and extraterrestrials), while others are not completely baseless (e.g. a Bigfoot video [even what's depicted isn't a Bigfoot, we see that something is there]), but to double back to the original point though, that 'hoax' is the wrong word for these media misrepresentations, I still disagree on that. If we look at the Cambridge definition: 'a plan to deceive someone, such as telling the police there is a bomb somewhere when there is not one, or a trick',
the media plans the stories to deceive people into thinking Trump (and it's not just him, but he's what we're talking about) said or suggested something that he actually did not, even though they have all the evidence in front of them to disprove their story, for the purpose of driving engagement and increasing profits. But you could simply call it 'lies' or 'fake news' too.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jan 11, 2024, 03:41 PM^ Thanks SGR. I appreciate that. :thumb:
I'm hoping that one day you and I might be back in the Album Club so we have a chance to swap opinions about music and not just politics, where we seem to be at rather opposite ends of the spectrum :(

Yeah, maybe after football season is over and/or after I get my house - I'll be less busy and join in on the fun again. I had a lot of fun discussing our opinions on the albums in my last run. And even if we do disagree on things politically, it's all good - if everyone agreed on things politically, there certainly wouldn't be much fun in discussing it.  ;D

Vivek suspended his campaign to fully endorse Trump

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jan 16, 2024, 09:47 PMVivek suspended his campaign to fully endorse Trump

Do you think he'll start to go out and stump for Trump? If he does, I think he'll be highly effective. Vivek articulates practically the same messages as Trump, but he's much more incisive and articulate.

I don't know much about US politics but I do know a bit about betting and odds.

The bookies have Donald Trump as the clear favourite to win the election now at 6/5.

Biden is 2/1.

I know there is a long way to go but that's a pretty big difference.

Do my American friends agree with this?

Quote from: jimmy jazz on Jan 17, 2024, 01:05 AMI don't know much about US politics but I do know a bit about betting and odds.

The bookies have Donald Trump as the clear favourite to win the election now at 6/5.

Biden is 2/1.

I know there is a long way to go but that's a pretty big difference.

Do my American friends agree with this?

Iowa was just the first state, trump won 20 delegates. A candidate needs to get 1215 to win the nomination. So Haley and Desantis doing so well will play out in the rest of the states. Iowa just gets the hype because it's the first state to vote for the next election.

January 23 New Hampshire votes, which will give out more delegates towards that 1215 to win. So long way to go.

I think that super delegates in America can vote to deny the candidate the nomination too, if trump continues to win states and gets 1215, he may just simply be denied the nomination.

Quote from: Mindy on Jan 17, 2024, 01:23 AMIowa was just the first state, trump won 20 delegates. A candidate needs to get 1215 to win the nomination. So Haley and Desantis doing so well will play out in the rest of the states. Iowa just gets the hype because it's the first state to vote for the next election.

January 23 New Hampshire votes, which will give out more delegates towards that 1215 to win. So long way to go.

I think that super delegates in America can vote to deny the candidate the nomination too, if trump continues to win states and gets 1215, he may just simply be denied the nomination.

Trump has a commanding lead among most states against his primary opponenets. And unlike the DNC, Republicans have far fewer superdelegates, and also unlike the DNC, the superdelegates are bound to the results of their states' primaries:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/2003308/can-gop-superdelegates-stop-trump/

Barring legally taking him off the ballot, jail time, or his death, he's going to be the Republican nominee almost assuredly.

Quote from: SGR on Jan 17, 2024, 02:22 AMthe superdelegates are bound to the results of their states' primaries:

I thought it was up to them ultimately

Quote from: SGR on Jan 17, 2024, 02:22 AMBarring legally taking him off the ballot, jail time, or his death, he's going to be the Republican nominee almost assuredly.

hopefully, something happens to where he isn't the republican nominee (https://i.imgur.com/WHDl3qd.png)

Quote from: Mindy on Jan 17, 2024, 02:52 AMI thought it was up to them ultimately

It's different between Republicans and Democrats. Democrat superdelegates have the ability to vote completely autonomously from the majority vote of their state's populace (because, as we all know, Democrats care so much about democracy), unlike Republican superdelegates, who are bound to the vote of their state's populace. Democrat superdelegates also comprise about twice as much power as Republican superdelegates (15% v. 7%). Bernie Sanders himself has supported completely eliminating superdelegates. Here's a simple explanation on Quora (https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Republican-party-have-superdelegates):

Quote from: Joseph EvansThe technical answer is that yes, the Republican Party does have superdelegates. However, they function differently for the GOP than Democrats. They just have way, way less power and autonomy than the superdelegates on the Democratic side.

I do not know how the Democratic Party has changed their rules from 2016, but in the Democratic Party, you're a superdelegate if you're a member of the official party apparatus. That includes all current Democratic governors and members of Congress as well as former presidents, former vice presidents, state party chairs, and that sort of thing. In the Democratic Party, superdelegates can vote for whichever candidate they wish regardless of how the state that they come from votes, and in total, superdelegates comprise about 15% of the total delegates that determine the nomination.

The GOP, however, has decided to establish fewer superdelegates than the Democrats. In the Republican Party, the only people who get superdelegate status are the three members of each state's national party. This means that in the GOP, superdelegates are only about 7% of the total number of delegates.

The more important distinction, though, is that Republican superdelegates do not have the freedom to vote for whichever candidate they please. The Republican National Committee ruled in 2015 that their superdelegates must vote for the candidate that their state voted for.

In general, superdelegates are a way for the party elite to exert additional influence over the nomination process. If voters were on the verge of nominating a candidate who the party felt didn't have a good shot at winning the general election, the superdelegates might step in and tip the scales.

The same info can also be found on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate#Criticism_and_defenses)

Quote from: SGR on Jan 16, 2024, 09:55 PMDo you think he'll start to go out and stump for Trump? If he does, I think he'll be highly effective. Vivek articulates practically the same messages as Trump, but he's much more incisive and articulate.

I guess this answers that question.

He certainly doesn't waste any time.  He still wants to be POTUS one day.  If you can't win on your own, nab that VP slot and pick up the pieces when your nearly 80 year old running mate keels over during his 4 year term. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Quote from: SGR on Jan 17, 2024, 03:16 AMIt's different between Republicans and Democrats. Democrat superdelegates have the ability to vote completely autonomously from the majority vote of their state's populace (because, as we all know, Democrats care so much about democracy), unlike Republican superdelegates, who are bound to the vote of their state's populace. Democrat superdelegates also comprise about twice as much power as Republican superdelegates (15% v. 7%). Bernie Sanders himself has supported completely eliminating superdelegates. Here's a simple explanation on Quora (https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Republican-party-have-superdelegates):

The same info can also be found on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate#Criticism_and_defenses)

didnt know they had different rules (https://boxden.com/smilies/ra2NRDo.png)

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Jan 17, 2024, 03:27 AMHe certainly doesn't waste any time.  He still wants to be POTUS one day.  If you can't win on your own, nab that VP slot and pick up the pieces when your nearly 80 year old running mate keels over during his 4 year term. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I still don't see him as VP. But AG? Maybe. And this very quick turnaround when he previously said he was only interested in the #1 spot (president) certainly would give credence to those who said he was only looking for a position in Trump's cabinet to advance a political career. And the approach worked wonders, given Trump's absence. Since Trump wasn't on the debate stage, just go up there yourself, embarass the Republican party stooges like Trump did in 2016, say nice things about Trump and his agenda, and profit.

Quote from: jimmy jazz on Jan 17, 2024, 01:05 AMI don't know much about US politics but I do know a bit about betting and odds.

The bookies have Donald Trump as the clear favourite to win the election now at 6/5.

Biden is 2/1.

I know there is a long way to go but that's a pretty big difference.

Do my American friends agree with this?

It maps with the general sentiment.

If I had to bet rn I would go with Trump,  but I also expect those odds to narrow when you get closer to election.

Quote from: Mindy on Jan 16, 2024, 07:59 PM

She's got that crazy look in her eyes.

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Jan 17, 2024, 06:11 PMShe's got that crazy look in her eyes.

https://babylonbee.com/news/the-babylon-bee-endorses-nikki-haley-and-no-she-didnt-threaten-to-drone-strike-our-offices-haha

 :laughing:  :laughing:

Lol

(https://static.independent.co.uk/2024/01/17/19/Screenshot%202024-01-17%20at%209.08.28%20AM.png)

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Jan 17, 2024, 06:11 PMShe's got that crazy look in her eyes.

seriously bro I think this bitch is an android. Along with Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren.  Why does

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Jan 17, 2024, 03:27 AMHe certainly doesn't waste any time.  He still wants to be POTUS one day.  If you can't win on your own, nab that VP slot and pick up the pieces when your nearly 80 year old running mate keels over during his 4 year term. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

maybe. But if Trump wins and lives through his term,  being his VP isn't necessarily going to help Vivek in 4 years.  Just ask Mike Pence. 

Not so convinced he will be his VP anyway.  Could just end up being another Christie who thinks Trump will reward him for loyalty only to find out that you've been used.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Jan 18, 2024, 01:21 AMLol

(https://static.independent.co.uk/2024/01/17/19/Screenshot%202024-01-17%20at%209.08.28%20AM.png)

fuck this is exactly what I war thinking but couldn't put in to words

There's something about female politicians that give me serious uncanny valley vibes.

Elise Stefanik, GOP congresswoman rumored to be possible VP pick, to hit trail with Trump in New Hampshire (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rep-elise-stefanik-rumored-possible-vp-pick-with-trump-new-hampshire/)

Quote from: SGR on Jan 16, 2024, 09:55 PMDo you think he'll start to go out and stump for Trump? If he does, I think he'll be highly effective. Vivek articulates practically the same messages as Trump, but he's much more incisive and articulate.

No that's a bad idea. He hit up 300 spots in Iowa and Trump voters reduced him to a dirty Muslim. Trumps audience doesn't care about someone being articulate. He went hard in Iowa to walk away with 19%. He would do Trump more harm than good if he went out speaking for Trump.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jan 18, 2024, 04:40 PMNo that's a bad idea. He hit up 300 spots in Iowa and Trump voters reduced him to a dirty Muslim. Trumps audience doesn't care about someone being articulate. He went hard in Iowa to walk away with 19%. He would do Trump more harm than good if he went out speaking for Trump.

I wasn't thinking about him speaking for the purpose of persuading Trump voters. Trump voters don't need to be persuaded, they're voting Trump no matter what. I was more thinking about him stumping for Trump in the general - and Vivek's ability to articulate Trump's message in a way that's more persausive (than Trump) for undecided or swing voters.

Quote from: SGR on Jan 18, 2024, 06:44 PMI wasn't thinking about him speaking for the purpose of persuading Trump voters. Trump voters don't need to be persuaded, they're voting Trump no matter what. I was more thinking about him stumping for Trump in the general - and Vivek's ability to articulate Trump's message in a way that's more persausive (than Trump) for undecided or swing voters.

Undecided and swing voters are undecided because they don't want to vote for Trump so Vivek caping for Trump still won't help in that aspect.

RFK Jr. is gonna end up picking up most of the independents if he gets on the ballot in all the swing states. Just my prediction.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jan 18, 2024, 08:37 PMUndecided and swing voters are undecided because they don't want to vote for Trump so Vivek caping for Trump still won't help in that aspect.

To be fair, they're undecided because they don't really want to vote for Trump and they don't really want to vote for Biden. Obama stumping for Biden will help (assuming said undecided voters liked Obama), but I think if Vivek is given a big enough stage/platform (e.g. RNC convention), he'd help Trump. I'd be willing to wager a large number of undecided voters haven't even heard of Vivek, or if they have, they haven't really heard him speak.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Jan 18, 2024, 09:56 PMRFK Jr. is gonna end up picking up most of the independents if he gets on the ballot in all the swing states. Just my prediction.

It raises an interesting question - how many undecided voters at this point in the race typically go with one of the two main parties? I'm sure there are some that aren't willing to vote third party just because they'd feel that it is a wasted vote (and in some ways, it is). Others might stick to their convictions of fuck both Trump and Biden, I don't care if I'm voting for a spoiler, I'm not giving my vote to either of these dudes, and will vote for RFK (somewhat similar to what happened in the 1912 election with Wilson/Taft/Roosevelt, except Roosevelt played spoiler so well he got more votes than the Republican Taft).

:laughing:

Lmao he's so real for this

QuoteMidway through the Q.-&-A. section of Nikki Haley's town hall, earlier this month, at the Veterans of Foreign Wars post in Merrimack, New Hampshire, a man named Ted Johnson stood up to announce that America was heading for civil war. "So," he asked Haley, "how can I get back to that day, in the nineteen-eighties, when I was happy, running in the street, riding my bike?

https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-political-scene/nikki-haleys-consensus-appeal

I can't see Nikki Haley catching on with enough Republican voters to stay in the race much longer.

Down goes DeSantis

DeSantis Drops Out (https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/21/politics/desantis-ends-2024-campaign/index.html)

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jan 21, 2024, 11:48 PMDown goes DeSantis

DeSantis Drops Out (https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/21/politics/desantis-ends-2024-campaign/index.html)

The guy has the charisma of a brick wall.

Do we wanna start speculating who Trumps VP pick is gonna be?

Haley should be dropping out after New Hampshire if not before. I feel like she might try to hold out until then but it is futile.

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Jan 12, 2024, 05:38 PM

"She's Arrogant, Conceited & Elitest" - Why Nikki Haley Thinks She's Better Than You

Well the fellas will now have the entertainment of seeing her getting absolutely pumelled by you know who. She'd be a better fit in the other party it seems though, as with Blinken, I doubt she has the charisma to win a general election. The Hillary comparison seems kinda apropriate.

Quote from: jadis on Jan 23, 2024, 11:33 AMWell the fellas will now have the entertainment of seeing her getting absolutely pumelled by you know who. She'd be a better fit in the other party it seems though, as with Blinken, I doubt she has the charisma to win a general election. The Hillary comparison seems kinda apropriate.

She's definitely a neocon. I don't think there'd be much difference between her and Biden in terms of foreign policy, at least.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jan 23, 2024, 09:09 AMDo we wanna start speculating who Trumps VP pick is gonna be?

Haley should be dropping out after New Hampshire if not before. I feel like she might try to hold out until then but it is futile.

Some people have speculated Tucker Carlson, but I don't buy that.

I'd say the most likely at this point are Kristi Noem or Elise Stefanik. I could see picking one over the other for different reasons. As shallow as it is, Noem is more physically attractive and that's a factor in how people vote. But Trump seems to have more of a personal relationship with Stefanik, so he might trust her more. I think his VP pick is definitely going to be a woman.

Wildcard pick: Tulsi Gabbard.

RFK JR SURGES to 21% in National Poll; Trump Expected to TROUNCE Nikki Haley in NH

Quote from: SGR on Jan 23, 2024, 04:28 PMSome people have speculated Tucker Carlson, but I don't buy that.

I'd say the most likely at this point are Kristi Noem or Elise Stefanik. I could see picking one over the other for different reasons. As shallow as it is, Noem is more physically attractive and that's a factor in how people vote. But Trump seems to have more of a personal relationship with Stefanik, so he might trust her more. I think his VP pick is definitely going to be a woman.

Wildcard pick: Tulsi Gabbard.

I think he'll pick Tim Scott.  He's got a similar profile to Mike Pence, just without all the gay conversion therapy baggage.  Plus he's black and that's gonna be a huge plus in the general election.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Jan 23, 2024, 08:51 PMI think he'll pick Tim Scott.  He's got a similar profile to Mike Pence, just without all the gay conversion therapy baggage.  Plus he's black and that's gonna be a huge plus in the general election.

Hmm...that might be an interesting choice. Tim Scott is not very exciting, but maybe that's what would make him a good counter-balance to Trump (much like Pence).

Quote from: SGR on Jan 23, 2024, 04:28 PMSome people have speculated Tucker Carlson, but I don't buy that.

I'd say the most likely at this point are Kristi Noem or Elise Stefanik. I could see picking one over the other for different reasons. As shallow as it is, Noem is more physically attractive and that's a factor in how people vote. But Trump seems to have more of a personal relationship with Stefanik, so he might trust her more. I think his VP pick is definitely going to be a woman.

Wildcard pick: Tulsi Gabbard.

So I have only been hearing about Tim Scott and Elise Stefanik.

I don't know who Kristi Noem is.

Wouldn't it be funny if he picked MTG?

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jan 23, 2024, 11:01 PMSo I have only been hearing about Tim Scott and Elise Stefanik.

I don't know who Kristi Noem is.

Wouldn't it be funny if he picked MTG?

He'd have to be utterly insane to pick MTG as VP.

Kristie Noem is the governor of North Dakota.

(https://assets-global.website-files.com/622f24d5cb639a7580ba3c93/623dcce0e54ec56f69efd8c6_-1x-1-min.jpg)

Trump beats Haley in New Hampshire primary (https://thehill.com/elections/4422051-new-hampshire-primary-live-updates/)

Quote from: SGR on Jan 23, 2024, 11:21 PMHe'd have to be utterly insane to pick MTG as VP.

Kristie Noem is the governor of North Dakota.

(https://assets-global.website-files.com/622f24d5cb639a7580ba3c93/623dcce0e54ec56f69efd8c6_-1x-1-min.jpg)

Ooooh that's the one in the cheating scandal right?

Idk if he would pick her. He thrives off of drama type situations but this cheating scandal stuff should deter him from picking her unless he just says fuck it and goes all in.

Quote from: SGR on Jan 23, 2024, 11:21 PMHe'd have to be utterly insane to pick MTG as VP.

Kristie Noem is the governor of North Dakota.

(https://assets-global.website-files.com/622f24d5cb639a7580ba3c93/623dcce0e54ec56f69efd8c6_-1x-1-min.jpg)

She's the governor of South Dakota.

The governor of North Dakota is Doug Burgum.


And as long as I'm here, I wonder if Nikki Haley will drop out of the race before the South Carolina primary, in her home state, which she will almost certainly lose to Trump.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jan 24, 2024, 09:12 AMOoooh that's the one in the cheating scandal right?

Idk if he would pick her. He thrives off of drama type situations but this cheating scandal stuff should deter him from picking her unless he just says fuck it and goes all in.

Yeah, that's the one - as Psy pointed out, I flubbed - she's the South Dakota governor, not the North Dakota governor.

The interesting thing with those allegations, as I understand them, is that it sounds like she was cheating in the sense that she and her husband were still legally married and but were separated. Still, a bad look.

https://nypost.com/2023/09/15/kristi-noem-corey-lewandowski-affair-shakes-up-trump-running-mate-stakes/

The guy she was cheating with, Corey Lewandowski was also supposedly cheating on his spouse, not just with Noem, but also with White House Communications Director, Hope Hicks. Guy was a dog, I guess. But he must have had game.

(https://images.wsj.net/im-83314/?width=700&height=467)

Quote from: SGR on Jan 23, 2024, 04:25 PMShe's definitely a neocon. I don't think there'd be much difference between her and Biden in terms of foreign policy, at least.

there's really not much daylight between Trump and Biden on crucial foreign policy questions either. Besides the fact that it's questionable how supportive Trump would have been of Ukraine. When it comes to the Middle East, Bidens 2 massive optical failures (the pull out of Afghanistan and the attempted normalization deal between the gulf states and Israel).  , both of these were holdovers from Trump era policy and were touted as a success for his administration prior to them backfiring.

Wonder if a Michelle Obama (https://nypost.com/2024/01/22/opinion/michelle-obama-may-already-be-working-on-a-2024-white-house-bid/) run is indeed on the cards. Hope not. I hate her (https://nypost.com/2023/12/15/news/hamas-hostage-naama-levys-father-shames-michelle-obama/). The only upside would be Trump's riffs. You know exactly where he'll take it. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.

Quote from: SGR on Jan 23, 2024, 04:25 PMShe's definitely a neocon. I don't think there'd be much difference between her and Biden in terms of foreign policy, at least.

There is some: Iran. I doubt she has any interest in continuing the dem policy of something-that-looks-a-bit-like-appeasement vis-à-vis Tehran. On Iran I think Blinken is more of an Obama democrat than anything else.

Quote from: Jwb on Jan 24, 2024, 06:36 PMthere's really not much daylight between Trump and Biden on crucial foreign policy questions either. Besides the fact that it's questionable how supportive Trump would have been of Ukraine. When it comes to the Middle East, Bidens 2 massive optical failures (the pull out of Afghanistan and the attempted normalization deal between the gulf states and Israel).  , both of these were holdovers from Trump era policy and were touted as a success for his administration prior to them backfiring.

You mean the attempted Saudi deal backfired on Oct 7? I'm looking at it from Israel's perspective, not in terms of domestic US politics, but it seems the response from the Gulf states (Qatar aside obv) has been relatively muted, which is amazing. Neither UAE nor Bahrain (nor Egypt nor Jordan for that matter) cut the ties with Israel and there are reports the Saudi normalization isn't even dead. It's obvious they all hate Hamas and see Islamist terror as a threat.

Quote from: jadis on Jan 24, 2024, 10:41 PMYou mean the attempted Saudi deal backfired on Oct 7? I'm looking at it from Israel's perspective, not in terms of domestic US politics, but it seems the response from the Gulf states (Qatar aside obv) has been relatively muted, which is amazing. Neither UAE nor Bahrain (nor Egypt nor Jordan for that matter) cut the ties with Israel and there are reports the Saudi normalization isn't even dead. It's obvious they all hate Hamas and see Islamist terror as a threat.

First, I would point out I did say optical failure. As in I think the results of us pulling out of Afghanistan in the way we did looked particularly bad for the administration, even if the actual policy they were pursuing might have been theoretically sound.

I would say the in the same way, the mere fact that Oct 7 happened on his watch is regarded as a sort of optical failure for Biden, even if those optics are somewhat detached from the pragmatic questions the administration is actually tasked with addressing. It's similar to how we give presidents credit for the economy and hold them responsible for the economy even though their role in actually shaping the economy is much more diminished than I'm sure most of us would assume. Like I guarantee you when most people say Biden is bad on foreign policy what they actually mean is that several wars started in other parts of the world that he somehow failed to stop.

Also keep in mind that when Trump fans were going around trying to promote Trump's foreign policy record, they touted the Abraham accords as "bringing peace to the Middle East." If that was indeed the goal, then I would argue Oct 7 effectively renders the Abraham accords a distinct and utter failure.

Now you can try to argue that if the normalization process between these states continues despite Oct 7 and the war in Gaza/ whatever may follow, then that shows it might just be a minor set  back and not a final sign of failure, but that's only if you admit that the goal wasn't necessarily to bring the Middle East any closer to peace. Because by that metric there's little to suggest even any realistic future prospect for peace.

So once you analyze what is the actual goal here, to me the answer is quite simple. I don't even expect you will disagree with this tbh: the goal is simply to form an alliance against Iran. That has been the impetus from the get go, and it started soon after Obama began negotiations with Tehran.

The Saudis and Israel have been covertly cooperating on at least a security basis since then. And the latest normalization deal would have just brought that defacto alliance into the light. The fact the gulf   States still haven't backed out isn't that surprising. The initial impetus for them to enter into said agreement is only more apparent than it was before, with Iranian proxies throughout the region being activated by the current conflict.

It's also not surprising that out of all the partners, the Saudis are the most reluctant. They do have a current ceasefire with the Houthis, after a decade of waging a brutal and endless war in Yemen. I'm sure they're not at all excited about the prospect of reanimating that conflict. They also have notoriously religious population that is among the most anti-Israel in sentiment in the entire world. They have a long history of contending with religious radicals in their own country which pose an internal  threat to the monarchy's rule.

It's a common trend in the Middle East for the regimes of the various Muslim countries to use anti Israel sentiment to try to placate their populations, which are largely virulently anti semitic, let alone anti Israel. As such, the Saudis did have conditions they were pursuing vis a vis the Israel normalization deal. Most of them benefited the regime directly, e.g. having the US assist them with developing nuclear energy. But they also had the vague idea they needed some sort of concession for the Palestinians, and  that wasn't out of genuine warm feelings toward their downtrodden Muslim brothers. It's so they can at least latch onto the idea they got something for the Palestinians and didn't just sell out to the Jews, as a narrative to sell to their own people.

That seems exceedingly unlikely in the aftermath of this war, to me. That any sort of concessions could be even nominally be secured for the Palestinians even in the West Bank, at this point seems next to impossible. Though  it's certainly not necessarily impossible the Saudis will just forget that angle and go for the deal anyway, which intrinsically the regime probably wants to do. But again, if they do they will almost certainly reignite the conflict with the Houthis, and they will be facing a potentially dangerous sentiment among their domestic population. So it remains to be seen.

Also, giving nuclear technology to the Saudis seems like a pretty dangerous precedent. MBS straight up said if Iran gets a nuke , the Saudis have to get one. So we are going to risk creating/exasperating a nuclear arms race in the  Middle East by giving nuclear technology to a regime that can't guarantee it won't pursue nuclear weapons and also spends its spare time mass executing its citizens via beheading and upholding  shariah law. Not to mention being the number one exporter of the same militant islamist thought you say they are against.

Another aspect to consider is what America was supposed to get out of the equation, not just Israel and Saudi Arabia. Supposedly, the goal for us was broader disengagement from the Middle East. It was meant to be a way to contain Iran via proxies but without direct involvement. And one of the prices for doing so was a mutual defense pact with both Israel and Saudi Arabia. So considering that, does it seem to you like we are further away from another potential Middle East war with American troops on the ground? If anything I'd say we're getting closer.

Lastly, I'll just mention that while there's no proof, one of the more prominent theories floating out there about the motivations for the attack was that Iran specifically incited it in response to said normalization talks. If that's true, then not only did the normalization efforts not bring us closer to peace, they motivated the act of war that brought us where we are.

But even if it's not true, we're clearly much closer to an all out war in the Middle East than we have been in some time, and Iran is more activated than ever. So again, if the goal is peace I would say they probably failed, if the goal is preparation for war with Iran, then mission accomplished.

There's an excellent podcast ep from one of Israel's best journalists, Haviv Rettig Gur, on many of the issues you bring up: what is the goal behind the Abraham Accords for the Gulf states, what is the metric by which the Accords will be judged, what is the nature of Iran's anti-Israel obsession (you'll like this bit).

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/call-me-back-with-dan-senor/id1539292794?i=1000641662133

QuoteLastly, I'll just mention that while there's no proof, one of the more prominent theories floating out there about the motivations for the attack was that Iran specifically incited it in response to said normalization talks. If that's true, then not only did the normalization efforts not bring us closer to peace, they motivated the act of war that brought us where we are.

If you follow through on this, then Israel should never seek to establish relations with any Arab states because it would piss Iran off, no?   

Quote from: jadis on Jan 26, 2024, 03:15 AMThere's an excellent podcast ep from one of Israel's best journalists, Haviv Rettig Gur, on many of the issues you bring up: what is the goal behind the Abraham Accords for the Gulf states, what is the metric by which the Accords will be judged, what is the nature of Iran's anti-Israel obsession (you'll like this bit).

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/call-me-back-with-dan-senor/id1539292794?i=1000641662133

I genuinely appreciate the suggestion. I'm always looking for shit to listen to at work. I'll probably check this out tomorrow.

QuoteIf you follow through on this, then Israel should never seek to establish relations with any Arab states because it would piss Iran off, no?   

1) I didn't necessarily say what Israel should or shouldn't have done regarding the Abraham accords and the subsequent Biden attempts at normalization. I just cited that from an American pov, the expressed goal was peace, along with a general disengagement from the region on our part. On that front it was quite clearly a failure.

2) it's disingenuous to frame it as a sorta deal between the gulf states and Israel that inadvertently ended up pissing off Iran. Iran are the direct target of said alliance, as I mentioned previously:


3) if we're gonna talk about what they "should do," this last statement in that video about  "not granting Palestinians a veto " illustrates another problem with this arrangement. They are basically trying to move forward with their own goals in a way that doesn't even remotely consider the question of the people who are actually suffering under the current arrangement.

Basically I think Rettig Gur answers most of this. The normalization with the Gulf states is not just a strategic alliance against Iran, which it obviously is. It is also and more crucially a statement by the Gulf elites that the Muslim world doesn't have to be stuck in its retarded resentment against Israel. That they are better than that.

I too used to think that the campaign to subsume the Palestinian issue under Iran was disingenuous (and to the extent it's coming from Netanyahu it kinda is*). But as I see it today, Palestinians are merely the tip of the spear of Arab/Muslim resentment against the existence of a Jewish state: once the Palestinians decide that their main goal is acquiring a state for themselves, as opposed to annihilating the Jewish one, resolving the territorial issue shouldn't be too difficult. On these points I recommend the work of Shany Mor and Hussein Mansour Aboubakr. Specifically, this is the best and most lucid thing (https://archive.md/G5rAX) I've ever read on this conflict. If you don't have the energy to read it, he lays out his argument here (https://youtu.be/hxgjAtVX_mM?si=DoB1XZ98z19vy0GR). I like this essay so much I also listened to him discussing it with Rettig Gur and Mansour Aboubakr on this podcast (https://podcasts.apple.com/il/podcast/the-tikvah-podcast/id921756215?i=1000636366203). Obviously one doesn't have to agree with everything or anything they say but that's what makes sense to me today.

*What I mean here is that this man doesn't have Israel's best interest at heart. The thing with Obama over the Iran deal for example: if he cared about Israel as opposed to appearing big dicked to his base, he would've gotten something tangible from the Americans once it was clear that the deal is going to be signed. For example, to get Iran out of Syria, something along these lines. He could've gotten some concessions. Instead he went for optics and severely compromised Israel's standing with Democrats.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jan 23, 2024, 09:09 AMHaley should be dropping out after New Hampshire if not before. I feel like she might try to hold out until then but it is futile.

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Jan 23, 2024, 06:23 PMTrump Expected to TROUNCE Nikki Haley in NH

Am I missing something? There's a lot of media coverage about how Nikki Haley is losing every primary against Trump, and the RNC is even saying that Trump should be declared the GOP candidate without any such democratic formality as people voting in any more Primaries.

But surely, all Nikki Haley has to do is hang on in there and watch as Trump descends into his self-made swamp of legal cases, financial woes and reputational damage. In the coming months, that s**t storm is only going to get worse, and Nikki Haley will come up smelling like roses, as the only viable alternative. Another advantage she has is that she is even beginning (at last) to say some home-truths about her opponent:-

QuoteNikki Haley now says Donald Trump is too old, too confused, too chaotic, and too tantrum-prone to be president — and in a jab likely to especially infuriate her rival, warns he even lacks the money to mount a proper White House run.

How likely is this scenario, I wonder: the Trump base dominates the Primaries, Nikki loses, but then Trump is disgraced or declared ineligible to run as President , and there's Nikki Haley, standing ready to pick up candidacy?

Supreme Court signals unlikely to let Colorado kick Trump off ballot (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/supreme-court-weighs-trumps-bid-stay-colorado-ballot-rcna136557)

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Feb 08, 2024, 07:47 PMSupreme Court signals unlikely to let Colorado kick Trump off ballot (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/supreme-court-weighs-trumps-bid-stay-colorado-ballot-rcna136557)

(https://i.makeagif.com/media/1-24-2017/R4DluW.gif)

Donald Trump faces little competition and wins big in Nevada caucus (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68248731?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA)

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Feb 09, 2024, 07:12 PMDonald Trump faces little competition and wins big in Nevada caucus (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68248731?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA)

I didn't read the article but I thought none of these candidates won in Nevada not Trump.

Losing to None of These Candidates (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nikki-haley-losing-candidates-option-nevada-republican-primary/story?id=107013869)

Quote from: DJChameleon on Feb 10, 2024, 12:05 AMI didn't read the article but I thought none of these candidates won in Nevada not Trump.

Losing to None of These Candidates (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nikki-haley-losing-candidates-option-nevada-republican-primary/story?id=107013869)

So to follow up on this. They had both a causcaus AND primary. Trump won the caucaus but he wasn't on the ballot for the Primary only Nikki. All the Trumpards made sure "none of these candidates" won the Primary over Nikki.

Trump on Nato: Dangerous talk at a dangerous time (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68268817?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA)

Quote from: jadis on Jan 24, 2024, 10:41 PMWonder if a Michelle Obama (https://nypost.com/2024/01/22/opinion/michelle-obama-may-already-be-working-on-a-2024-white-house-bid/) run is indeed on the cards. Hope not. I hate her (https://nypost.com/2023/12/15/news/hamas-hostage-naama-levys-father-shames-michelle-obama/). The only upside would be Trump's riffs. You know exactly where he'll take it. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.

As much as certain people want Michelle to run she will never run. She has stated multiple times that she is against running.

Nikki Haley's OWN WORDS Prove She's A Corporate Stooge

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Feb 15, 2024, 04:29 PM

Nikki Haley's OWN WORDS Prove She's A Corporate Stooge

(https://media.giphy.com/media/3o7qE70qESbBcMfeoM/giphy.gif)

Trump hawks $399 branded shoes at 'Sneaker Con,' a day after a $355 million ruling against him (https://apnews.com/article/trump-sneakers-sneaker-con-philadelphia-4de093eda6f8d1c68baf8fe8095f777b)

QuotePHILADELPHIA (AP) — As he closes in on the Republican presidential nomination, former President Donald Trump made a highly unusual stop Saturday, hawking new Trump-branded sneakers at "Sneaker Con," a gathering that bills itself as the "The Greatest Sneaker Show on Earth."

Trump was met with loud boos as well as cheers at the Philadelphia Convention Center as he introduced what he called the first official Trump footwear.

The shoes, shiny gold high tops with an American flag detail on the back, are being sold as "Never Surrender High-Tops" for $399 on a new website that also sells other Trump-branded shoes and "Victory47" cologne and perfume for $99 a bottle.

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Feb 18, 2024, 07:23 AMTrump hawks $399 branded shoes at 'Sneaker Con,' a day after a $355 million ruling against him (https://apnews.com/article/trump-sneakers-sneaker-con-philadelphia-4de093eda6f8d1c68baf8fe8095f777b)

 :laughing:

Anyone able to post the website? I can't find it.

Quote from: jimmy jazz on Feb 18, 2024, 12:19 PM:laughing:

Anyone able to post the website? I can't find it.

Too late they are sold out.

https://gettrumpsneakers.com/

I didn't realize there were other shoes on the site. I thought just the gold ones. Some perfume and cologne too.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Feb 19, 2024, 12:13 AMI didn't realize there were other shoes on the site. I thought just the gold ones. Some perfume and cologne too.

Would you wear any of them?

Quote from: jimmy jazz on Feb 19, 2024, 10:22 PMWould you wear any of them?

The red ones maybe but I don't like the placement of the T. I wish they would have put it on the back of the shoe instead of on the side the 45 with the wings on the side is nice though.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Feb 02, 2024, 05:58 PM...all Nikki Haley has to do is hang on in there and watch as Trump descends into his self-made swamp of legal cases, financial woes and reputational damage. In the coming months, that s**t storm is only going to get worse, and Nikki Haley will come up smelling like roses, as the only viable alternative. Another advantage she has is that she is even beginning (at last) to say some home-truths about her opponent.

How likely is this scenario, I wonder: the Trump base dominates the Primaries, Nikki loses, but then Trump is disgraced or declared ineligible to run as President , and there's Nikki Haley, standing ready to pick up candidacy?

In support of the above idea, I heard this morning that last month Nikki Haley's campaign raised more funds than D Trump's did. Despite Trump announcing, a couple of weeks back, that anyone contributing to NH's campaign funds would be excommunicated from the Trump cult, donors seem to be voting with their wallets -  and voting for Nikki.
I wonder if, for once, I've made a political prediction that's going to come true.

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Feb 15, 2024, 04:29 PM

Nikki Haley's OWN WORDS Prove She's A Corporate Stooge

That collection of back-to-back lying is pretty good!
Just to be clear: although I'm making the case that Haley should not be written off as a potential candidate, that doesn't mean I support her in any way. She is after all the woman who said that lowering drug prices by a process of bargaining and/or bulk-buy discounts for the US government was a communist idea that she opposed.

Lol she's toast at this point. Burnt toast really.  No chance.