|
|
Post by Gabrielzakuaniandjuliet on Oct 25, 2024 18:48:52 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. One of your posts mentions how most of Trump's achievements were not him directly/would have happened regardless. This is true and can be applied to most politicians. it's actually a very small number that individually make a huge difference. Presumably you think that Trump could be one of that small number, and in a bad way. A question then: if January 6 didn't happen, would you concede that this race would largely be a question of generic democrat governance vs generic Republican governance? You seem to be framing it as a battle of good and evil. The problem with this for me is that Democrats didn't start speaking this way in response to Trump, it started with Obama 2012. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Oct 25, 2024 19:30:08 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. One of your posts mentions how most of Trump's achievements were not him directly/would have happened regardless. This is true and can be applied to most politicians. it's actually a very small number that individually make a huge difference. Presumably you think that Trump could be one of that small number, and in a bad way. A question then: if January 6 didn't happen, would you concede that this race would largely be a question of generic democrat governance vs generic Republican governance? You seem to be framing it as a battle of good and evil. The problem with this for me is that Democrats didn't start speaking this way in response to Trump, it started with Obama 2012. Without 6th January, the US presidential race might indeed focus more on traditional policy debates between Democrats and Republicans. However, the political landscape is always evolving, and other factors would still shape the race, such as economic issues, healthcare, and right now predominantly foreign policy. |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Oct 25, 2024 19:45:03 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. "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." Exactly. And this is why I think USA may follow a similar trajectory to the UK in this election where parties and candidates outside the big two will see an increase in votes. People are tired of rewarding politicians who are actively hurting what they want. It's the reason why the Labour Party in the uk has lost 4 million votes in recent years as well as many members. I'd say we are where we are because people have being prioritising "lesser evil" over "better". Since 2008 things have got much worse in the uk and I suspect the same in USA. We've had the Republican alligned tory party in charge since then. You've had the Labour alligned democrst party in charge for 12/16 years. Ones supposedly to the "left" and one to the "right". The only common denominator between the two countries is life got vastly better for the 0.1% and worse for the rest. Over the last decade politics seems to have became increasingly divisive, extreme and tense in the west. I think that's maybe partially driven by people's quality of lives getting worse and people trying to latch on to a reason or explanation or a saviour so to speak. I don't think I'm poorer because of trannys, asylum seekers or increased spending on diversity. I also don't think I'm worse off because of a once in a lifetime recession or a once in a lifetime pandemic or whatever other once in a lifetime event is round the corner. Maybe a world war. I think I'm worse off because that top 0.1% have increased their wealth by the amount my group have decreased their wealth over that period. And that's not because of Russia, Iran or China either. That's because of the people who have the most power in this country. And so for me I don't fear the orange buffoon or Nasty Nige in the uk and use that as a justification for mediocrity. I'm voting for better. I appreciate others likely may not agree with me. One thing I always find funny is women in work. In the 1800s men, women and children were all working due to the widespread poverty. Then in the early 1900s as things improved slightly some middle class men were able to support their families on one income and housewives became a thing. Then after the war we had the "golden era" in the 50s where working class families could also afford to live on a single income and it was encouraged. And now here we are in 2024 and we have two income families struggling and going with their begging bowls to food banks. And we celebrate this dependency as "women's rights" because they are working more. Many not through choice. And this is off the back of the industrial revolution where we have cars, boats, computers, robots and all sorts of technology and machinery to make our lives easier. Honestly we're all being mugged off here. It's not Iran, China, Russia, Gammon, Liberal elite, woke, asylum seekers, disabled people, benefits claimants or anyone else to blame. It's the people at the helm of our countries who are accountable for us being worse off. And they'll continue to keep pointing the finger at everyone and anyone else for as long as they can get away with it. Maybe in another 20 years we really will be back in the victorian ages with children forced to work too. Which may sound exaggerated... but it was only a few months back that the leader of the conservative party in the uk was suggesting mandatory community service for teenagers without even being paid. Maybe they'll dress that up as a win for "children's rights" down the line too. Sorry for another rant but sometimes its hard to explain my thoughts. So the more I type the more I think it'll make sense. Right I'll stop now. |
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Oct 25, 2024 20:12:49 GMT
One of your posts mentions how most of Trump's achievements were not him directly/would have happened regardless. This is true and can be applied to most politicians. it's actually a very small number that individually make a huge difference. I agree with almost all that. The record-breaking job gains under Biden have only little to do with his policies and that's why I don't post any of those "fact"sheets on "achievements" that are about last month's GDP or employment, and say the results were because of Trump or Biden or whoever. I honestly think it's more complicated than that. But also that presidents can make a huge difference even if they aren't to credit/blame for everything that happens in their term. E.g. Bush blew open the long-term deficit and got the Iraq war. Obama expanded healthcare for so many people, but also fucked up massively on handling Russia and Syria. Those are two huge things from each president that properly affect lives today IMO. Trump has his own major things too. Presumably you think that Trump could be one of that small number, and in a bad way. A question then: if January 6 didn't happen, would you concede that this race would largely be a question of generic democrat governance vs generic Republican governance? If Trump hadn't done January 6th, hadn't lied about elections to undermine trust in democracy, hadn't done an intentional campaign of mass child abuse, caging children, hadn't referred to political people he didn't like as "vermin" and talk about punishing them, hadn't used the power of the state for personal political gain to blackmail Zelenskyy, hadn't brought unprecedented corruption into the government by hiding tax returns, running a business while in office etc... basically if he wasn't a corrupt autocrat then yeah I'd agree it'd be on democratic Vs republican policies. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 25, 2024 20:51:37 GMT
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"? Ok fair point. But claiming someone is stronger than someone else implies a degree of strength and at the very least implies that person has that quality. Trump is not strong. He is a load mouth bully in thrall to actual strong men. Harris will stand up to the likes of Putin. Trump will back down. Harris will stand up to chauvinist pigs who claim women like to be grabbed by the pussy. Trump brags about being the guy who grabs women by the pussy. And to be fair on that one he does actually follow through. Don't you see how your marginal acceptance of Trump as the better candidate is so way off the mark? |
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Oct 25, 2024 21:24:13 GMT
Right, so where in my post did I say Trump was a "strong leader"? Ok fair point. But claiming someone is stronger than someone else implies a degree of strength and at the very least implies that person has that quality. Trump is not strong. He is a load mouth bully in thrall to actual strong men. Harris will stand up to the likes of Putin. Trump will back down. Harris will stand up to chauvinist pigs who claim women like to be grabbed by the pussy. Trump brags about being the guy who grabs women by the pussy. And to be fair on that one he does actually follow through. Don't you see how your marginal acceptance of Trump as the better candidate is so way off the mark? No but don't you see how your staunch belief in Harris being the better candidate despite decades of political failure is way off the mark? Literally the only reason you want Kamala to win is because of your disdain for Trump's behavior outside of politics. It's got nothing to do with whether he may or may not fix the economy, fix the border crisis or his potential to improve foreign affairs. Which is fine btw. Trump is a nasty piece of work so if you don't want him in because of his private life, that's your right. But don't try and pretend Kamala Harris is going to drive positive change for America. She's been VP for 4 years and she's been useless. |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Oct 25, 2024 21:28:51 GMT
Ok fair point. But claiming someone is stronger than someone else implies a degree of strength and at the very least implies that person has that quality. Trump is not strong. He is a load mouth bully in thrall to actual strong men. Harris will stand up to the likes of Putin. Trump will back down. Harris will stand up to chauvinist pigs who claim women like to be grabbed by the pussy. Trump brags about being the guy who grabs women by the pussy. And to be fair on that one he does actually follow through. Don't you see how your marginal acceptance of Trump as the better candidate is so way off the mark? No but don't you see how your staunch belief in Harris being the better candidate despite decades of political failure is way off the mark? Literally the only reason you want Kamala to win is because of your disdain for Trump's behavior outside of politics. It's got nothing to do with whether he may or may not fix the economy, fix the border crisis or his potential to improve foreign affairs. Which is fine btw. Trump is a nasty piece of work so if you don't want him in because of his private life, that's your right. But don't try and pretend Kamala Harris is going to drive positive change for America. She's been VP for 4 years and she's been useless. I've read by the posts about Harris above Where does it say or suggest (even slightly) that she is going to be a positive change for America She's a better option than Biden , that's it However despite her being a pretty lame emergency candidate she's clearly pushing Trump all the way Why? Because millions of Americans, including out and out Republicans can see he's an appalling human being,with no credibility in business or in office |
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Oct 26, 2024 1:33:34 GMT
We are in a rare position. Trump has been the president before. Anything he wants to do this time.... why didn't he do it last time?
Between 2016 and 2020 Trump didn't lower tax. Between 2016 and 2020 Trump didn't fix roads or get new infrastructure built. Between 2016 and 2020 Trump didn't improve healthcare. Between 2016 and 2020 Trump didn't build that stupid wall. Between 2016 and 2020 Trump didn't 'drain the swamp'. Between 2016 and 2020 Trump didn't resurrect the coal industry. In 2020 he didn't make covid disappear, in fact the most powerful person in the world advised people to inject themselves with disinfectant. His response to the covid crisis was to launch a series of dull diatribes on China which were often little more than lousy bigoted lunges.
So, when is his disciples claim he fought for them, well, he didn't. The appeal is simple. They feel Trump justifies their hatred. Trump hates the same people as they do. There's precious little else. It isn't about anyone's life improving... it's all to denigrate the people they hate. They think that's all they need.
|
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Oct 26, 2024 2:08:57 GMT
No but don't you see how your staunch belief in Harris being the better candidate despite decades of political failure is way off the mark? Literally the only reason you want Kamala to win is because of your disdain for Trump's behavior outside of politics. It's got nothing to do with whether he may or may not fix the economy, fix the border crisis or his potential to improve foreign affairs. Which is fine btw. Trump is a nasty piece of work so if you don't want him in because of his private life, that's your right. But don't try and pretend Kamala Harris is going to drive positive change for America. She's been VP for 4 years and she's been useless. I've read by the posts about Harris above Where does it say or suggest (even slightly) that she is going to be a positive change for America She's a better option than Biden , that's it However despite her being a pretty lame emergency candidate she's clearly pushing Trump all the way Why? Because millions of Americans, including out and out Republicans can see he's an appalling human being,with no credibility in business or in office And yet he's still favorite to win. Make sense of that? Blame the Democrats for nominating such a "lame" candidate. She's on the brink of losing to a candidate most of America doesn't like. It's a similar story to our own election. Simply being a better option than a senile, unwell bloke who quite literally doesn't know what day it is doesn't mean anything. And actually, there's a huge debate to be had as to whether she's "better" than him. |
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Oct 26, 2024 2:12:45 GMT
We are in a rare position. Trump has been the president before. Anything he wants to do this time.... why didn't he do it last time? Between 2016 and 2020 Trump didn't lower tax. Between 2016 and 2020 Trump didn't fix roads or get new infrastructure built. Between 2016 and 2020 Trump didn't improve healthcare. Between 2016 and 2020 Trump didn't build that stupid wall. Between 2016 and 2020 Trump didn't 'drain the swamp'. Between 2016 and 2020 Trump didn't resurrect the coal industry. In 2020 he didn't make covid disappear, in fact the most powerful person in the world advised people to inject themselves with disinfectant. His response to the covid crisis was to launch a series of dull diatribes on China which were often little more than lousy bigoted lunges. So, when is his disciples claim he fought for them, well, he didn't. The appeal is simple. They feel Trump justifies their hatred. Trump hates the same people as they do. There's precious little else. It isn't about anyone's life improving... it's all to denigrate the people they hate. They think that's all they need. Funny. You can say exactly the same about Harris and the Democrats. Harris has been in senior political roles for years and was VP for the last 4 years. She's been absolutely useless. Why on earth is anything going to be better under her than it was Biden? Literally everything being levelled at Trump (excluding non politics related stuff), Kamala is guilty of and more. |
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Oct 26, 2024 2:30:34 GMT
We are in a rare position. Trump has been the president before. Anything he wants to do this time.... why didn't he do it last time? Between 2016 and 2020 Trump didn't lower tax. Between 2016 and 2020 Trump didn't fix roads or get new infrastructure built. Between 2016 and 2020 Trump didn't improve healthcare. Between 2016 and 2020 Trump didn't build that stupid wall. Between 2016 and 2020 Trump didn't 'drain the swamp'. Between 2016 and 2020 Trump didn't resurrect the coal industry. In 2020 he didn't make covid disappear, in fact the most powerful person in the world advised people to inject themselves with disinfectant. His response to the covid crisis was to launch a series of dull diatribes on China which were often little more than lousy bigoted lunges. So, when is his disciples claim he fought for them, well, he didn't. The appeal is simple. They feel Trump justifies their hatred. Trump hates the same people as they do. There's precious little else. It isn't about anyone's life improving... it's all to denigrate the people they hate. They think that's all they need. Funny. You can say exactly the same about Harris and the Democrats. Harris has been in senior political roles for years and was VP for the last 4 years. She was absolutely useless. Why on earth is anything going to be better under her than it was Biden? Literally everything being levelled at Trump (excluding non politics related stuff), Kamala is guilty of and more. She isn't a convicted criminal. She isn't a sex offender. She isn't planning to be a dictator. She hasn't wasted inheritance from her father. She hasn't threatened to incarcerate people who support her opponent. She doesn't rant gibberish. She didn't refer to US soldiers as losers. She didn't pay hush money to a porn actor and falsify business records to cover it up. I'm no particular fan of Harris. But ferfuxache. |
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Oct 26, 2024 2:46:20 GMT
Funny. You can say exactly the same about Harris and the Democrats. Harris has been in senior political roles for years and was VP for the last 4 years. She was absolutely useless. Why on earth is anything going to be better under her than it was Biden? Literally everything being levelled at Trump (excluding non politics related stuff), Kamala is guilty of and more. She isn't a convicted criminal. She isn't a sex offender. She isn't planning to be a dictator. She hasn't wasted inheritance from her father. She hasn't threatened to incarcerate people who support her opponent. She doesn't rant gibberish. She didn't refer to US soldiers as losers. She didn't pay hush money to a porn actor and falsify business records to cover it up. I'm no particular fan of Harris. But ferfuxache. Yeah so, exactly as I say. You can't tell me one good thing about Harris aside from the fact that she isn't Trump. One thing we absolutely do know for certain about Harris is she will continue to invest heavily in prolonging the mass slaughter in Ukraine and the Middle East and we can say with absolute certainty that she will fail to address the US border crisis (her remit for the past however long). Would you also back her over Trump to improve the economy? No chance. Trump is a cunt and a dire candidate. Where have I said he isn't? |
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Oct 26, 2024 3:21:51 GMT
Between 2016 and 2020 Trump didn't lower tax. He did lower taxes in the "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act". It was mostly aimed at the richest but there were short term cuts for most people. It was planned to increase the net deficit by just under $1.5 trillion. Because with their votes the funny congressional rules set that limit. The rules say after a decade it has to be "revenue neutral". He managed that by permanently increasing taxes on taxpayers earning under $100k in order to fund tax cuts for those earning over $100k. He inherited the economy during the ramp up where I think it's best to sort out your finances. Instead he decided to blow up the deficit for short term gains. All that deficit spending did make his economy look a bit better but it hurt America today. (Yeah nerd alert... I read the Congressional summaries, the impact assessment by the Joint Committee on Taxation and a bunch of other stuff to try and understand it. I know that's weird 😂) He did fail on healthcare, the border and infrastructure where democrats would have have worked with him on any non-extreme proposals. But he wasn't fucking interested. |
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Oct 26, 2024 3:23:32 GMT
She isn't a convicted criminal. She isn't a sex offender. She isn't planning to be a dictator. She hasn't wasted inheritance from her father. She hasn't threatened to incarcerate people who support her opponent. She doesn't rant gibberish. She didn't refer to US soldiers as losers. She didn't pay hush money to a porn actor and falsify business records to cover it up. I'm no particular fan of Harris. But ferfuxache. Yeah so, exactly as I say. You can't tell me one good thing about Harris aside from the fact that she isn't Trump. One thing we absolutely do know for certain about Harris is she will continue to invest heavily in prolonging the mass slaughter in Ukraine and the Middle East and we can say with absolute certainty that she will fail to address the US border crisis (her remit for the past however long). Would you also back her over Trump to improve the economy? No chance. Trump is a cunt and a dire candidate. Where have I said he isn't? If elected what form would 'peace' in Ukraine take? |
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Oct 26, 2024 3:30:41 GMT
Yeah so, exactly as I say. You can't tell me one good thing about Harris aside from the fact that she isn't Trump. One thing we absolutely do know for certain about Harris is she will continue to invest heavily in prolonging the mass slaughter in Ukraine and the Middle East and we can say with absolute certainty that she will fail to address the US border crisis (her remit for the past however long). Would you also back her over Trump to improve the economy? No chance. Trump is a cunt and a dire candidate. Where have I said he isn't? If elected what form would 'peace' in Ukraine take? Absolutely no idea but at least there is going to be an effort made to bring the war to an end if Trump is elected. Even if there was a 1% chance he could help bring it to an end, that's 1% more of a chance than under Harris. |
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Oct 26, 2024 3:50:48 GMT
If elected what form would 'peace' in Ukraine take? Absolutely no idea but at least there is going to be an effort made to bring the war to an end if Trump is elected. Even if there was a 1% chance he could help bring it to an end, that's 1% more of a chance than under Harris. So, if he withdraws arms supplies to Ukraine, which is what he's indicated he'd do, what happens then? |
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Oct 26, 2024 4:00:24 GMT
Absolutely no idea but at least there is going to be an effort made to bring the war to an end if Trump is elected. Even if there was a 1% chance he could help bring it to an end, that's 1% more of a chance than under Harris. So, if he withdraws arms supplies to Ukraine, which is what he's indicated he'd do, what happens then? What if my Auntie had a dick? None of us know how he'd go about trying to negotiate so it's pointless speculating. He's kept his cards (quite rightly) close to his chest on that. But we do know with certainty Harris won't be looking to end the war. |
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Oct 26, 2024 6:50:08 GMT
So, if he withdraws arms supplies to Ukraine, which is what he's indicated he'd do, what happens then? What if my Auntie had a dick? None of us know how he'd go about trying to negotiate so it's pointless speculating. He's kept his cards (quite rightly) close to his chest on that. But we do know with certainty Harris won't be looking to end the war. If he withdraws arms funding, effectively conceding to Ukraine, and ending the conflict, would you be OK with that? |
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Oct 26, 2024 7:02:23 GMT
What if my Auntie had a dick? None of us know how he'd go about trying to negotiate so it's pointless speculating. He's kept his cards (quite rightly) close to his chest on that. But we do know with certainty Harris won't be looking to end the war. If he withdraws arms funding, effectively conceding to Ukraine, and ending the conflict, would you be OK with that? No, I don't think he would start to withdraw funding until a deal has been done. Why would you withdraw funding before negotiating? I imagine the only point we would see funding withdrawn is if Trump could see Zelensky making no effort to negotiate. |
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Oct 26, 2024 7:17:32 GMT
So, if he withdraws arms supplies to Ukraine, which is what he's indicated he'd do, what happens then? What if my Auntie had a dick? None of us know how he'd go about trying to negotiate so it's pointless speculating. He's kept his cards (quite rightly) close to his chest on that. But we do know with certainty Harris won't be looking to end the war. So on Harris you say "One thing we absolutely do know for certain about Harris is she will continue to invest heavily in prolonging the mass slaughter in Ukraine and the Middle East and we can say with absolute certainty that she will fail to address the US border crisis (her remit for the past however long)." And on Trump you say: "What if my Auntie had a dick? None of us know how he'd go about trying to negotiate so it's pointless speculating." Where does the cast iron certainty about Harris' actions come from, as opposed to the lack of ability to have any idea what Trump will do? Given Trump has had four years as President and Harris has never been president, I would have thought it would be the other way round if anything. |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 26, 2024 7:23:09 GMT
Trump is a Russian asset.
Putin has kompromat on Trump.
|
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Oct 26, 2024 7:30:10 GMT
If elected what form would 'peace' in Ukraine take? Absolutely no idea but at least there is going to be an effort made to bring the war to an end if Trump is elected. Even if there was a 1% chance he could help bring it to an end, that's 1% more of a chance than under Harris. Surrender isn't peace |
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Oct 26, 2024 7:47:36 GMT
Absolutely no idea but at least there is going to be an effort made to bring the war to an end if Trump is elected. Even if there was a 1% chance he could help bring it to an end, that's 1% more of a chance than under Harris. Surrender isn't peace Yeah true. Also, if Russia get control of Ukraine what happens next? |
|
|
|
Post by roylandstoke on Oct 26, 2024 8:21:21 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. Have you considered what Trump’s ‘swift end ‘ to the wars in Ukraine and. Gaza will entail? |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Oct 26, 2024 8:24:07 GMT
Yeah true. Also, if Russia get control of Ukraine what happens next? Moldova Then the Baltic's - this probably only happens if Trump is President as NATO would be hamstrung Then Poland and so on |
|
|
|
Post by Gabrielzakuaniandjuliet on Oct 26, 2024 9:09:31 GMT
What if my Auntie had a dick? None of us know how he'd go about trying to negotiate so it's pointless speculating. He's kept his cards (quite rightly) close to his chest on that. But we do know with certainty Harris won't be looking to end the war. If he withdraws arms funding, effectively conceding to Ukraine, and ending the conflict, would you be OK with that? There's zero evidence this is his plan. He will probably say to Putin: work it out in the next 6 months or I'll give them everything they're asking for. Then to Zelensky: we'll back you and make sure you're in a strong negotiating position but this has gone on long enough and you need to make a deal. That would actually be good news for Zelensky! He's presiding over a ruined country but if he comes out and says he wants to make concessions, he'll look weak to his people. In this case, he has to take the off ramp and people will understand he had no real choice. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Oct 26, 2024 9:14:40 GMT
If he withdraws arms funding, effectively conceding to Ukraine, and ending the conflict, would you be OK with that? There's zero evidence this is his plan. He will probably say to Putin: work it out in the next 6 months or I'll give them everything they're asking for. Then to Zelensky: we'll back you and make sure you're in a strong negotiating position but this has gone on long enough and you need to make a deal. That would actually be good news for Zelensky! He's presiding over a ruined country but if he comes out and says he wants to make concessions, he'll look weak to his people. In this case, he has to take the off ramp and people will understand he had no real choice. Donald Trump has expressed a desire to end the war in Ukraine quickly, but he hasn't explicitly threatened to withdraw arms funding. Instead, he has emphasized his ability to negotiate a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. However, his running mate, J.D. Vance, has specifically spoken about ending U.S. military assistance to Ukraine.
If Donald Trump's Presidential team (i.e. including JD Vance) were to withdraw arms funding for Ukraine as they have threatened, it would have significant consequences for the ongoing conflict. Without vital US military support, Ukraine could face severe challenges in sustaining its defence against Russia. The lack of weapons and supplies would likely lead to a decline in Ukrainian morale and a potential shift in the balance of power in favour of Russia. Any US withdrawal of funding for Ukraine could result in a shortage of essential equipment, including air defence interceptors and artillery shells, which would hinder Ukraine's ability to defend its territory and maintain its current positions. In the long term, the absence of US support would force Ukraine to seek alternative sources of aid or negotiate a settlement with Russia, potentially leading to a frozen, unresolved conflict along the current frontlines which would undoubtedly re-emerge and escalate in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Oct 26, 2024 12:21:39 GMT
What if my Auntie had a dick? None of us know how he'd go about trying to negotiate so it's pointless speculating. He's kept his cards (quite rightly) close to his chest on that. But we do know with certainty Harris won't be looking to end the war. So on Harris you say "One thing we absolutely do know for certain about Harris is she will continue to invest heavily in prolonging the mass slaughter in Ukraine and the Middle East and we can say with absolute certainty that she will fail to address the US border crisis (her remit for the past however long)." And on Trump you say: "What if my Auntie had a dick? None of us know how he'd go about trying to negotiate so it's pointless speculating." Where does the cast iron certainty about Harris' actions come from, as opposed to the lack of ability to have any idea what Trump will do? Given Trump has had four years as President and Harris has never been president, I would have thought it would be the other way round if anything. Ah man I give up. This is painful. |
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Oct 26, 2024 17:03:49 GMT
So on Harris you say "One thing we absolutely do know for certain about Harris is she will continue to invest heavily in prolonging the mass slaughter in Ukraine and the Middle East and we can say with absolute certainty that she will fail to address the US border crisis (her remit for the past however long)." And on Trump you say: "What if my Auntie had a dick? None of us know how he'd go about trying to negotiate so it's pointless speculating." Where does the cast iron certainty about Harris' actions come from, as opposed to the lack of ability to have any idea what Trump will do? Given Trump has had four years as President and Harris has never been president, I would have thought it would be the other way round if anything. Ah man I give up. This is painful. I think it's a fair question. Both situations (Harris being elected and Trump being re-elected) are hypothetical situations at this point, so it's impossible to know what they would do if elected in 2024. So why are you absolutely sure what Harris do, but unable to speculate what Trump would do? |
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Oct 26, 2024 17:30:49 GMT
Ah man I give up. This is painful. I think it's a fair question. Both situations (Harris being elected and Trump being re-elected) are hypothetical situations at this point, so it's impossible to know what they would do if elected in 2024. So why are you absolutely sure what Harris do, but unable to speculate what Trump would do? Trump has made it clear he will do his best to end the war in Ukraine and the Middle East. Harris has made it clear she does not intend to end these wars. Combine this with the fact these wars have escalated during her time as VP of the world's most powerful nation as opposed to the former who, aside from defeating isis in the Middle East, had no major escalations of wars during his tenure. Furthermore, the US economy was in a better place under Trump and he at least tried to curb the border crisis (albeit many did their best to stop him). Based on this alone, if you want any glimmer of hope that we might see the de-escalation of WW3, a better US economy and a safer country, then Trump is a better bet. Now I've answered that for about a 10th time, my question for you. What makes you think Harris is more likely to bring an end to the car crash in Ukraine and the Middle East? In addition to that, what makes you think Harris will bring about more economical success and border control than Trump? Her remit has literally been border control (a catastrophic failing) while being VP. Final question - What has Harris said she will implement as President which makes you want to vote for her and why hasn't she done it in the past 4 years? Please avoid retorting to stuff like "Trump is a convicted rapist blah blah" because that is the easiest way for you to avoid answering. |
|
