|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Oct 25, 2024 3:00:03 GMT
Is this election really worth getting wound up over? For most of us here we have no say in which way it swings. Unless you truly believe it’s existential then I don’t understand the levels of emotional investment. I personally don’t think there’ll be cause to celebrate either way. The best case scenario is akin to finding a lump, going for a biopsy and finding out it’s only aids. There's huge global ramifications. If material support for Ukraine is withdrawn we know what that will lead to. But who'd be next in Putin's line of death? How many more killed? There's also the overall philosophy surrounding him. When you're a bigoted prick you don't need much excuse to shout about it. When the leader of the free world (yeah right) is a bigoted prick you feel emboldened. It's a big situation for everybody. |
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Oct 25, 2024 6:10:17 GMT
Is this election really worth getting wound up over? For most of us here we have no say in which way it swings. Unless you truly believe it’s existential then I don’t understand the levels of emotional investment. I personally don’t think there’ll be cause to celebrate either way. The best case scenario is akin to finding a lump, going for a biopsy and finding out it’s only aids. There's huge global ramifications. If material support for Ukraine is withdrawn we know what that will lead to. But who'd be next in Putin's line of death? How many more killed? There's also the overall philosophy surrounding him. When you're a bigoted prick you don't need much excuse to shout about it. When the leader of the free world (yeah right) is a bigoted prick you feel emboldened. It's a big situation for everybody. It's staggering that so many people fail to realise just how dangerous this 🍊🤡 is 🤷 |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Oct 25, 2024 6:17:32 GMT
Makes Big Nige look amateurish, he's got them eating out of the palm of his hand.
|
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Oct 25, 2024 6:32:22 GMT
Makes Big Nige look amateurish, he's got them eating out of the palm of his hand. Imagine the reaction from his fanboys on here if Biden had done anything like that 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Oct 25, 2024 7:58:42 GMT
What did he do though? Which of those things are what he did? Can you be specific? The first ten points I read are just taking credit for what was happening anyway. Do you believe that the president has instant and complete control of the economy? If you do, then you must believe that Biden created more jobs than Trump so Biden is better? Or if you don't, and you think it's complicated and lots of things happen, then what they do matters. Not just what they take credit for. OK so let's just pretend Trump achieved nothing and all the economical success and comparative world peace was all a fluke. What the fuck has Kamala achieved that makes you so confident she's a better bet than Trump? She's been a catastrophe as VP. Your hatred for Trump is clouding your mind over who is the more competent candidate. You know as well as I do that Harris is an utter clown. You hate Trump, I get it. I don't like him either but for the sake of ending wars and improving the US economy, implementing law and order while tackling their shambolic immigration policy, hes a better bet. Is he a cunt? Yes. Which wars did Trump end when he was in power? |
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Oct 25, 2024 8:26:16 GMT
OK so let's just pretend Trump achieved nothing and all the economical success and comparative world peace was all a fluke. What the fuck has Kamala achieved that makes you so confident she's a better bet than Trump? She's been a catastrophe as VP. Your hatred for Trump is clouding your mind over who is the more competent candidate. You know as well as I do that Harris is an utter clown. You hate Trump, I get it. I don't like him either but for the sake of ending wars and improving the US economy, implementing law and order while tackling their shambolic immigration policy, hes a better bet. Is he a cunt? Yes. Which wars did Trump end when he was in power? None. But he also didn't enable war and suffering across the Middle East, Afghanistan and Ukraine (which started in 2014 but spiraled into chaos in 2022) like the current US government. He's vowed to end the wars via peaceful means. Kamala has done the opposite and has made it very clear she doesn't want to end the fighting in any of these regions. Surely its preferable to have the candidate who is wanting a swift end to war over one that isn't? Whether he can achieve it is another question but he's at least going to make an effort and I strongly suspect he will have more gravitas when negotiating with other world leaders then the incumbent dopes in the Democrat Party. Just to reiterate, I think Trump is an awful choice but without question the stronger leader out of the two and more likely to bring about positive change. |
|
|
|
Post by Gabrielzakuaniandjuliet on Oct 25, 2024 8:58:55 GMT
Scary stuff (no, not a cult at all) ... Interestingly some of the Christian right aren't backing him because he's too centrist, on issues like abortion for example. That's not to say that they'll vote Harris but rather won't show up at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Oct 25, 2024 9:00:53 GMT
What did he do though? Which of those things are what he did? Can you be specific? The first ten points I read are just taking credit for what was happening anyway. Do you believe that the president has instant and complete control of the economy? If you do, then you must believe that Biden created more jobs than Trump so Biden is better? Or if you don't, and you think it's complicated and lots of things happen, then what they do matters. Not just what they take credit for. Bianco has made it clear multiple times he isn't a Trump supporter. It seems that his criticism of Harris has to be followed up with why Trump is better. Can you not think both candidates are bad. What has Harris done as VP to make America and the world a better place? Would you be singing trumps praises if he was up against Hitler because at least he didn't do a Holocaust. It's possible to think both candidates are bad and running on a mandate for genocide. And if/when Democrats lose that will be a big reason why due to people voting Jill Stein and other candidates. And that won't be the Republicans fault or the Jill Stein voters fault. That will be Harris and the Democrats fault for running on a genocidal mandate (which Trump is also running for). But anyway who cares about children and women being murdered in the 10s of thousands... She's a better person than Trump so we can turn a blind eye to the blood on her hands. |
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Oct 25, 2024 9:19:58 GMT
Which wars did Trump end when he was in power? None. But he also didn't enable war and suffering across the Middle East, Afghanistan and Ukraine (which started in 2014 but spiraled into chaos in 2022) like the current US government. He's vowed to end the wars via peaceful means. Kamala has done the opposite and has made it very clear she doesn't want to end the fighting in any of these regions. Surely its preferable to have the candidate who is wanting a swift end to war over one that isn't? Whether he can achieve it is another question but he's at least going to make an effort and I strongly suspect he will have more gravitas when negotiating with other world leaders then the incumbent dopes in the Democrat Party. Just to reiterate, I think Trump is an awful choice but without question the stronger leader out of the two and more likely to bring about positive change. So he didn't end any wars while he was in power, but he says he will do if he is re-elected. So there is only his word that he is anti-war And he very much did enable war and suffering in the Middle East and Afghanistan, as had every US president over the last two decades (and more). The Russian war is definitely something he may end sooner rather than later, in the same way that it would have ended sooner if Volodymyr Zelenskyy had fled Kyiv when the invasion started. Do you think his decision to stay was a mistake? |
|
|
|
Post by Gabrielzakuaniandjuliet on Oct 25, 2024 9:38:27 GMT
Elon Musk,Bill Ackman , RFK, Vivek, JD Vance, Tulsi Gabbard.
Quite an accomplished and extremely varied group of people actively supporting Trump.
I guess they all just love dictators
|
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 25, 2024 10:00:19 GMT
Elon Musk,Bill Ackman , RFK, Vivek, JD Vance, Tulsi Gabbard. Quite an accomplished and extremely varied group of people actively supporting Trump. I guess they all just love dictators Or jyst love dictators who are going to give them well paid jobs and lower their taxes? |
|
|
|
Post by turtlefox on Oct 25, 2024 10:17:03 GMT
I prefer to rely on what the Judge who precided on the case actually said rather than some hacks reinterpretation of what he said Judge Kaplan's Ruling
Floor Speech By: Ted Lieu Date: July 25, 2023 Location: Washington, DC Mr. LIEU. Mr. Speaker, on July 19, 2023, Federal Judge Lewis Kaplan rejected Donald Trump's request for a new trial and confirmed that Donald Trump raped E. Jean Carroll.I must submit this court ruling into the Congressional Record, and I will read what the judge found. On page 43, the judge wrote: ``Ms. Carroll testified that the sexual assault--the `rape'--of which she accused Mr. Trump involved especially painful, forced digital penetration. . . . '' The judge further writes: ``The testimony of the outcry witnesses, [Mses.] Birnbach and Martin, corroborated the essence of Ms. Carroll's account of a violent, traumatic sexual assault.'' On page 44, the judge wrote: ``The jury's finding of sexual abuse therefore necessarily implies that it found that Mr. Trump forcibly penetrated her vagina.''
The judge further writes: `` . . . in other words, that he raped her. . . . ''Mr. Speaker, Judge Kaplan's memorandum opinion denying defendant's rule 59 motion can be found at: storage.courtlistener.com/ recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.212.0.pdf. justfacts.votesmart.org/public-statement/1656882/judge-kaplans-rulingSo the judge who oversaw the case said he raped her but the case itself said that he wasn't liable ? You can see why it's confusing. |
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Oct 25, 2024 10:19:35 GMT
Elon Musk,Bill Ackman , RFK, Vivek, JD Vance, Tulsi Gabbard. Quite an accomplished and extremely varied group of people actively supporting Trump. I guess they all just love dictators And yet 40 out of 44 senior staff members from when he was previously president aren't. Because they don't think he's fit. Wonder who knows best 🤔 |
|
|
|
Post by Gabrielzakuaniandjuliet on Oct 25, 2024 10:56:59 GMT
Elon Musk,Bill Ackman , RFK, Vivek, JD Vance, Tulsi Gabbard. Quite an accomplished and extremely varied group of people actively supporting Trump. I guess they all just love dictators And yet 40 out of 44 senior staff members from when he was previously president aren't. Because they don't think he's fit. Wonder who knows best 🤔 Yeah it's fair to mention that. If he wins, it will be interesting to see how prominent in his administration some of the names on my list will be. None of them are really people you would choose if you were a narcissist looking for sycophants. More than anything though,I think the list I mentioned is a damning indictment of where the Democrats are, rather than a love letter to Trump. |
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Oct 25, 2024 11:02:39 GMT
And yet 40 out of 44 senior staff members from when he was previously president aren't. Because they don't think he's fit. Wonder who knows best 🤔 Yeah it's fair to mention that. If he wins, it will be interesting to see how prominent in his administration some of the names on my list will be. None of them are really people you would choose if you were a narcissist looking for sycophants. More than anything though,I think the list I mentioned is a damning indictment of where the Democrats are, rather than a love letter to Trump. Well from what I know about RFK he's a dick. No comment needs to made about Vance (whose past comments about 🍊🤡 are very revealing) or Musk. Don't know the other fella. |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Oct 25, 2024 11:16:11 GMT
The Democrats and republicans should enter a pact to take turns of putting a wet lettuce as their candidate in every other election.
That is what will bring peace and unity to the American people.
If they have one candidate they can all agree is shit and useless then they can all agree to blindly vote the other together.
Because that's all Americas elections have become. Voting against the candidate you dislike the most.
So introduce a useless candidate universally disliked and the Americans can live in harmony knowing they voted a shit candidate out.
Who needs reasons to vote for someone when you can have reasons to vote against someone. The American dream. Land of the free and where democracy flows.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gabrielzakuaniandjuliet on Oct 25, 2024 12:31:28 GMT
Yeah it's fair to mention that. If he wins, it will be interesting to see how prominent in his administration some of the names on my list will be. None of them are really people you would choose if you were a narcissist looking for sycophants. More than anything though,I think the list I mentioned is a damning indictment of where the Democrats are, rather than a love letter to Trump. Well from what I know about RFK he's a dick. No comment needs to made about Vance (whose past comments about 🍊🤡 are very revealing) or Musk. Don't know the other fella. Heard conflicting things about RFK but hard disagree on JD Vance. I can't see how anyone could be critical of his character or intelligence if they bothered to listen to him for more than 30 seconds |
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Oct 25, 2024 12:45:08 GMT
Well from what I know about RFK he's a dick. No comment needs to made about Vance (whose past comments about 🍊🤡 are very revealing) or Musk. Don't know the other fella. Heard conflicting things about RFK but hard disagree on JD Vance. I can't see how anyone could be critical of his character or intelligence if they bothered to listen to him for more than 30 seconds He's now backing a bloke who's significantly older and more deranged than he was when he was of the opinion 🍊🤡 wasn't fit to be president and called him "America's Hitler". He can't seriously think he's changed for the better over that period, he clearly hasn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Gabrielzakuaniandjuliet on Oct 25, 2024 12:55:31 GMT
Heard conflicting things about RFK but hard disagree on JD Vance. I can't see how anyone could be critical of his character or intelligence if they bothered to listen to him for more than 30 seconds He's now backing a bloke who's significantly older and more deranged than he was when he was of the opinion 🍊🤡 wasn't fit to be president and called him "America's Hitler". He can't seriously think he's changed for the better over that period, he clearly hasn't. He's explained why he changed his position on Trump at length on several occasions. Unlike Harris, he does oppositional interviews and answers the questions. Harris won't explain any of her policy changes. He's the only one on either ticket that has genuine care and compassion for poor, working class people. Presumably everyone posting here has at least some connection to the city of Stoke. I'm not surprised that people on the left such as yourself (I presume!) don't agree with him and want him to lose, but he is really relatable and likeable if you actually watch him. We can respect people we disagree with sometimes. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Oct 25, 2024 12:58:20 GMT
J.D. Vance has been involved in several controversies and has made some polarizing statements. Most notably:
Flip-flopping on Trump: Vance was initially a vocal critic of Donald Trump, describing him as "America's Hitler" and a "cynical asshole". Now, of course, he is a staunch supporter and Trump's running mate.
Anti-abortion stance: Vance has expressed strong anti-abortion views, calling exceptions for rape and incest "inconvenient". He has also been criticized for his comments on reproductive rights and the impact of restrictive abortion laws.
Controversial statements: Vance has made several controversial remarks, including criticizing the "childless left" and suggesting policies similar to those in Hungary to encourage family formation.
Inconsistent conservatism: Vance's political positions have shifted over time, leading to accusations of inconsistency. For example, he has criticized corporate interests and supported higher taxes on capital gains, which are not typical Republican stances.
|
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Oct 25, 2024 13:05:47 GMT
He's now backing a bloke who's significantly older and more deranged than he was when he was of the opinion 🍊🤡 wasn't fit to be president and called him "America's Hitler". He can't seriously think he's changed for the better over that period, he clearly hasn't. He's explained why he changed his position on Trump at length on several occasions. Unlike Harris, he does oppositional interviews and answers the questions. Harris won't explain any of her policy changes. He's the only one on either ticket that has genuine care and compassion for poor, working class people. Presumably everyone posting here has at least some connection to the city of Stoke. I'm not surprised that people on the left such as yourself (I presume!) don't agree with him and want him to lose, but he is really relatable and likeable if you actually watch him. We can respect people we disagree with sometimes. So the hope is that his 'new' views and his compassion for the working class is going to make some difference to what the ultimate narcissist wants? Good luck with that. Wasn't Vance also at the forefront of the ridiculous 'they're eating our pets' charade? He's not as bad as Trump admittedly, but that's a very high (or more accurately low) bar that only a tiny percentage achieve. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 25, 2024 13:57:00 GMT
Which wars did Trump end when he was in power? None. But he also didn't enable war and suffering across the Middle East, Afghanistan and Ukraine (which started in 2014 but spiraled into chaos in 2022) like the current US government. He's vowed to end the wars via peaceful means. Kamala has done the opposite and has made it very clear she doesn't want to end the fighting in any of these regions. Surely its preferable to have the candidate who is wanting a swift end to war over one that isn't? Whether he can achieve it is another question but he's at least going to make an effort and I strongly suspect he will have more gravitas when negotiating with other world leaders then the incumbent dopes in the Democrat Party. Just to reiterate, I think Trump is an awful choice but without question the stronger leader out of the two and more likely to bring about positive change. Trump is a strong leader? Is he fuck. He's a bully and a coward who admires actual strong leaders because they are what he wants to be and isn't. Take Putin. If Putin looked you in the eye and told you to do something and you told him to fuck off he'd quite happily slit your throat without blinking an eye. Trump would just fuck off. Trump admires Putin because he's the "strong leader" he wants to be. Trump is a spoilt little rich boy who has got away with bullying people all his life because he's rich and arse licking sycophants keep him out of trouble. Trump's way of making peace in the Ukraine is to appease his hero Putin and sell out Ukraine. Whoever comes in next would have to deal with a Putin planning his next incursion into the Baltic states. The character Biff in back to the future was actually based on Trump. Everybody knows a Biff from their schooldays and no one sees them then or now as a "strong leader". |
|
|
|
Post by Gabrielzakuaniandjuliet on Oct 25, 2024 15:11:01 GMT
J.D. Vance has been involved in several controversies and has made some polarizing statements. Most notably: Flip-flopping on Trump: Vance was initially a vocal critic of Donald Trump, describing him as "America's Hitler" and a "cynical asshole". Now, of course, he is a staunch supporter and Trump's running mate. Anti-abortion stance: Vance has expressed strong anti-abortion views, calling exceptions for rape and incest "inconvenient". He has also been criticized for his comments on reproductive rights and the impact of restrictive abortion laws. Controversial statements: Vance has made several controversial remarks, including criticizing the "childless left" and suggesting policies similar to those in Hungary to encourage family formation. Inconsistent conservatism: Vance's political positions have shifted over time, leading to accusations of inconsistency. For example, he has criticized corporate interests and supported higher taxes on capital gains, which are not typical Republican stances. On Trump- see previous comment On abortion: he's obviously pro life but they aren't going to do anything with abortion and Trump is moderate on the issue. This is probably one of the issues that works best for dems because most people are pro choice, even though it's just going to remain a state level thing if Trump wins. Controversial remarks: mainstream media dug through his life and the worst they could find is a sarcastic comment about cat owners. That tells me that he really doesn't have much in terms of scandal and genuine controversy. It shouldn't be controversial to encourage people to start families... All data on demographics shows that western countries have problems in this area. Inconsistent conservatism: this is a fair observation but I don't really see why it leads to negative views of his character. He explains all his positions in interviews. He believes in bigger government/more spending than most Republicans. Someone with his views in the 90s might have worked for Bill Clinton. This doesn't mean that he is lying or changing his stated views just to get votes. People can change positions if they are open about how and why they did so. Vance and Harris are opposites in this regard. She won't explain any of her shifts |
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Oct 25, 2024 15:50:57 GMT
None. But he also didn't enable war and suffering across the Middle East, Afghanistan and Ukraine (which started in 2014 but spiraled into chaos in 2022) like the current US government. He's vowed to end the wars via peaceful means. Kamala has done the opposite and has made it very clear she doesn't want to end the fighting in any of these regions. Surely its preferable to have the candidate who is wanting a swift end to war over one that isn't? Whether he can achieve it is another question but he's at least going to make an effort and I strongly suspect he will have more gravitas when negotiating with other world leaders then the incumbent dopes in the Democrat Party. Just to reiterate, I think Trump is an awful choice but without question the stronger leader out of the two and more likely to bring about positive change. Trump is a strong leader? Is he fuck. He's a bully and a coward who admires actual strong leaders because they are what he wants to be and isn't. Take Putin. If Putin looked you in the eye and told you to do something and you told him to fuck off he'd quite happily slit your throat without blinking an eye. Trump would just fuck off. Trump admires Putin because he's the "strong leader" he wants to be. Trump is a spoilt little rich boy who has got away with bullying people all his life because he's rich and arse licking sycophants keep him out of trouble. Trump's way of making peace in the Ukraine is to appease his hero Putin and sell out Ukraine. Whoever comes in next would have to deal with a Putin planning his next incursion into the Baltic states. The character Biff in back to the future was actually based on Trump. Everybody knows a Biff from their schooldays and no one sees them then or now as a "strong leader". Right, so where in my post did I say Trump was a "strong leader"? |
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Oct 25, 2024 15:57:53 GMT
Because that's all Americas elections have become. Voting against the candidate you dislike the most. I strongly disagree - American lives are hugely affected by the candidates IMO. One example difference is in affordable healthcare vs more money for the rich. The Democrats act for affordable, wider healthcare coverage. The republicans to strip healthcare coverage from low-income people. Having coverage is life changing IMO. I used to think more black and white "butbothsides" but I'm more shades of grey now. My concern with the black and white thinking is that I don't see where you can realistically go. E.G. Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the 2000 election. A lot of people took great pride in the "purity" of their vote and many did it for the environment. They got to feel good about hurting those nasty democrats but they also destroyed federal climate action, which is likely to hurt hundreds of millions of real people. And they got the Iraq war and massive permanent tax cuts that were used to cause a deficit that became a campaign issue used to give even more power to rich and the corporations. Gore was better than Bush for many Nader voters. But he got punished for not being perfect. If voters refuse to vote for better then where do you end up? |
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Oct 25, 2024 16:03:17 GMT
OK so let's just pretend Trump achieved nothing and all the economical success and comparative world peace was all a fluke. What the fuck has Kamala achieved that makes you so confident she's a better bet than Trump? She's been a catastrophe as VP. Your hatred for Trump is clouding your mind over who is the more competent candidate. You know as well as I do that Harris is an utter clown. You hate Trump, I get it. I don't like him either but for the sake of ending wars and improving the US economy, implementing law and order while tackling their shambolic immigration policy, hes a better bet. Is he a cunt? Yes. I'll post details in some days when I have my laptop with the references. But I'd just ask you to consider the response here. You're a curious guy and I bet you've consumed hundreds of hours of relevant content. You're utterly certain that Trump achieved great things and will do great stuff... But after consuming massive amounts of political content you can't name a single thing he actually did and why it was good. Your reaction is immediately "butkamalabad". You have a belief that a trump presidency would be better but you've had 8 years to learn what he did and you can't name a single thing. Isn't that a bit worrying? Why didn't those (potentially) hundreds of hours of content provide details? I just think there's loads of unreliable political commentary and we shouldn't just believe it because we like it. |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Oct 25, 2024 16:49:58 GMT
Because that's all Americas elections have become. Voting against the candidate you dislike the most. I strongly disagree - American lives are hugely affected by the candidates IMO. One example difference is in affordable healthcare vs more money for the rich. The Democrats act for affordable, wider healthcare coverage. The republicans to strip healthcare coverage from low-income people. Having coverage is life changing IMO. I used to think more black and white "butbothsides" but I'm more shades of grey now. My concern with the black and white thinking is that I don't see where you can realistically go. E.G. Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the 2000 election. A lot of people took great pride in the "purity" of their vote and many did it for the environment. They got to feel good about hurting those nasty democrats but they also destroyed federal climate action, which is likely to hurt hundreds of millions of real people. And they got the Iraq war and massive permanent tax cuts that were used to cause a deficit that became a campaign issue used to give even more power to rich and the corporations. Gore was better than Bush for many Nader voters. But he got punished for not being perfect. If voters refuse to vote for better then where do you end up? America has the third highest gdp per capita in the world. Free healthcare shouldn't even be a debate, it should be a given. Then look at your employee rights too which are a shambles. And the annual leave which the average worker gets too is a joke compared to the rest of the world. And this is one of the richest countries in the world as well. Born with diabetes? Face a bill for the rest of your life which costs penny's to make but costs you hundreds to buy. But the reasons you list to vote Democrat such as free healthcare. These are things generally offered in socialist and communist countries who have been on the receiving end of more interference and invasions from the USA than anyone else. Afghanistan in the 70s had some of the best women's rights in the middle east and was a utopia. Then operation cyclone comes along, bin laden taliban gets funded by the US... and look at Afghanistan today. What was its crime? Communist. Chile. Venezuela. Guatemala. Etc.. what was their crime? Socialism and communism. If the Democrats cared about affordable healthcare they could introduce radical policy in one of the wealthiest countries in existence to deliver it for all. Well actually you're right in the sense they can't because of the two houses the senate and the Congress and it has to pass both etc.. so anything radical is probably very hard to push through. As it seems its rare one party controls both. But then that's the system that's been built and that always seems to be the issue. Can't get policy through because we don't control x or y house. So then nothing really drastically changes.. It's like what we have in the uk. Always labour v tory and the tories go a bit right, Labour go a bit left. When each party is in opposition they promise you the world but when they get into power those promises fade. And as each election passes the party on the left slowly goes a little bit more to the right. It's not about being as bad as eachother, I think the Republicans are worse than the Democrats. But that doesn't make the Democrats good for me. They've been in power many times over the last century and are just as responsible for today's issues in USA as Republicans are. Maybe if winning an election wasn't so depended on donors and money from big corporations things would be different. But it seems if you don't sing off their hymm sheet you can't win. And when they do win nothing significant changes. Its splitting hairs. What's the alternative? Fuck knows. But I'd rather waste my vote on an outsider and try to change things than keep doing the same thing and then complain about lack of alternatives. People will only look at alternatives if they think they can challenge and so I'd be happy to be that person who votes them if it builds up momentum and results in more voting them in future. For for too long the average American people, like ourselves in the uk, have been screwed over by their governments who have put the ludicrously wealthy to the top of their queues. What's our reward? A gay person can marry now but the chances of the majority owning a home is less. A trans person can use a woman's bathroom but that amazing NHS that looks after everyone now has months waiting list for cancer. A woman can have an abortion now but if she wants to raise a family she can expect to also need to work full time with her partner just to put a roof over the families head and feed and heat them. And yet we hear the same rhetoric about communism and socialism from these countries and how bad it is. Bad for who I ask? The 1% or the 99%? Sorry for the rant mate. I'm just explaining why I feel what I feel. I know you think differently and that's fair enough. Edit: I'm not saying I disagree with some of those left wing social policies either btw. I'm simply saying that a few poxy social policies are crumbs compared to some of the stuff taken away. Allowing a gay person to marry doesn't cost anyone any money. Allowing a woman to be in the army doesn't cost anyone any money. But try and get a policy which costs money and actually helps the majority and suddenly there is an issue. |
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Oct 25, 2024 17:07:19 GMT
If the Democrats cared about affordable healthcare they could introduce radical policy in one of the wealthiest countries in existence to deliver it for all. Well actually you're right in the sense they can't because of the two houses the senate and the Congress and it has to pass both etc.. so anything radical is probably very hard to push through. As it seems its rare one party controls both. But then that's the system that's been built and that always seems to be the issue. Can't get policy through because we don't control x or y house. So then nothing really drastically changes.. Fwiw I think the US healthcare system is awfully designed. It delivers excellent care for some people, and important breakthroughs. But the costs are extreme and totally immoral IMO. You're right about the US political system slowing down changes. Obama tried to nudge healthcare slightly towards a more European-style system. When asked about each of the things in the Affordable Care Act, most Americans supported them. But as soon as it was linked to Obama the polling changed. If voters punish politicians for doing what they say they want, and reward other politicians who are actively hurting what they say they want, then the end result seems like it'll be worse and worse. Whereas if Democrats had been rewarded in 2010 with votes, they would have expanded healthcare further. IMO voters choices really matter. And voters punishing "better" because it's not perfect is why we are where we are. |
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Oct 25, 2024 18:12:56 GMT
OK so let's just pretend Trump achieved nothing and all the economical success and comparative world peace was all a fluke. What the fuck has Kamala achieved that makes you so confident she's a better bet than Trump? She's been a catastrophe as VP. Your hatred for Trump is clouding your mind over who is the more competent candidate. You know as well as I do that Harris is an utter clown. You hate Trump, I get it. I don't like him either but for the sake of ending wars and improving the US economy, implementing law and order while tackling their shambolic immigration policy, hes a better bet. Is he a cunt? Yes. I'll post details in some days when I have my laptop with the references. But I'd just ask you to consider the response here. You're a curious guy and I bet you've consumed hundreds of hours of relevant content. You're utterly certain that Trump achieved great things and will do great stuff... But after consuming massive amounts of political content you can't name a single thing he actually did and why it was good. Your reaction is immediately "butkamalabad". You have a belief that a trump presidency would be better but you've had 8 years to learn what he did and you can't name a single thing. Isn't that a bit worrying? Why didn't those (potentially) hundreds of hours of content provide details? I just think there's loads of unreliable political commentary and we shouldn't just believe it because we like it. But cant you see all your doing is "butTrumpbad"? You haven't named a single thing Harris has done in the past 4 years nor her decades long political career. Let's just cut to the chase here. Your prime concern is Ukraine and you're terrified Trump is going to support Russia. I can assure you now, Trump will be better news for Ukraine than calamity Kamala. He lowered taxation for a lot of ordinary Americans, slashed regulation to improve the economy, attempted to curb immigration, defeated isis, was the first western leader to entertain a discussion with North Korea, held Iran accountable and called out the net zero green scam for what it is. He also made no progress on a lot of stuff and has a ghastly ego. I've made it quite clear he isn't a good candidate. He's merely a better bet than a lady who makes Keir Starmer look "in touch" with voters. They are both tragic. Just Trump is marginally less tragic. |
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Oct 25, 2024 18:15:10 GMT
I'll post details in some days when I have my laptop with the references. But I'd just ask you to consider the response here. You're a curious guy and I bet you've consumed hundreds of hours of relevant content. You're utterly certain that Trump achieved great things and will do great stuff... But after consuming massive amounts of political content you can't name a single thing he actually did and why it was good. Your reaction is immediately "butkamalabad". You have a belief that a trump presidency would be better but you've had 8 years to learn what he did and you can't name a single thing. Isn't that a bit worrying? Why didn't those (potentially) hundreds of hours of content provide details? I just think there's loads of unreliable political commentary and we shouldn't just believe it because we like it. But cant you see all your doing is "butTrumpbad"? You haven't named a single thing Harris has done in the past 4 years nor her decades long political career. Let's just cut to the chase here. Your prime concern is Ukraine and you're terrified Trump is going to support Russia. I can assure you now, Trump will be better news for Ukraine than calamity Kamala. He lowered taxation for a lot of ordinary Americans, slashed regulation to improve the economy, attempted to curb immigration, defeated isis, was the first western leader to entertain a discussion with North Korea, held Iran accountable and called out the net zero green scam for what it is. He also made no progress on a lot of stuff and has a ghastly ego. I've made it quite clear he isn't a good candidate. He's merely a better bet than a lady who makes Keir Starmer look "in touch" with voters. They are both tragic. Just Trump is marginally less tragic. I thought Butkamalabad was a mountainous range between Pakistan and Bangladesh tbh |
|
