The US Politics/Elections Thread 2.0

[downzy]

The odds on favourite is Senator Mark Kelly. 

It helps Dems in the state of Arizona, he’s tough on the border, and comes from a state with a Democratic Governor, which means his seat can be filled with another Democrat.  He can also help mobilize the base with respect to gun control. And he might also shore up Democratic support in New Mexico and help in Nevada.

Plus he’s an astronaut, and who doesn’t like astronauts?

With each and every passing day, Trump’s choice of JD Vance is looking worse and worse. 

[Cosmo]

I saw recent polls still place the dems behind Trump. It seems Kamala narrowed the difference, but didn't quite reach him. Hope she can turn this around. There's a chance Trump will refuse to debate her, based on his recent posts on Truth Social or whatever it's called. If I'm not mistaken, he said he'd only do it on Fox News. That would suck big time. It's in Kamala's interest to debate him, but he wants to maintain the current situation so he'll have the upper hand if there are no debates.

[-W.A.R-]

35 minutes ago, downzy said:

With each and every passing day, Trump’s choice of JD Vance is looking worse and worse. 

Really great piece on Vance that I'll share for others: The Opportunist

Quote

Vance saw a path to power and soon began to regret how frank he’d been about the fraudulence of the right-wing “populist” project. He deleted his negative tweets about Trump and has embraced exactly the kind of political program that he had previously acknowledged to be vacuous. Incidentally, this means that Vance is something of a liability as a VP pick for Trump, because he’s essentially on record admitting that what he’s now involved with is a massive attempt to deceive the public. Every time a journalist gets a chance to question him, they should just relentlessly ask why he is now part of an enterprise that he once thought was the equivalent of heroin at best and Hitlerism at worst.

[Tom2112]

On 7/21/2024 at 9:08 PM, downzy said:

It was inevitable. 

There was no path for Joe to win. It likely was never there, to be honest.

Anyone saying they know how this election will play out is kidding themselves. There’s so much time between now and the election. In early October 2016 it looked like Clinton was a lock. Lots can happen.

While it would have been better had Joe dropped his re-election campaign a year ago, it was still the right call. It completely resets the race and the news cycle. Now Republicans are running the candidate that many feel is too old. It’s almost certainly going to be Harris at the top of the ticket. Should be fun to watch Trump square off in a debate with a former prosecutor. 

Harris vs Trump is not much better than Biden. She’s very unlikeable similar to the 2016 race. The Biden/Harris admin has faltered more than succeeded too, which is fresh in voters minds. She will run on “we have to defend our country from Trump, who’s a dictator felon etc.” her supporters will say “first woman president” and argue historical significance and defending America from Trump. Gender/race mean sweet FA in the running of a country though. Who can hold their own on a world stage, who is the better strategist to make good decisions in America and or the worlds benefit, whoever that is should be running. ‘Should’ being an idealist thinking.
I think the Democrat party has thrown 8yrs of mud on Trump in the hope something would derail him and lose him his support. What they actually did was reinforce their belief that he was fighting against corruption and made him godlike. 
After the assassination attempt there’s very little that is going to derail Trumps return to the presidency. Plenty can happen in the next 3 months, but I highly doubt Kamala can beat Trump, I think there is a possibility but it would need to be because Trump starts self destructing again, keep him under control and on point and she will have a very tough time. Trump has regained ground in states he previously lost, right now he’s the more likely victor, for better or worse. The speeches will be fun if nothing else.

And that sounds like a very pro-Trumper argument. I’m not. I don’t support him on many of his decisions, abortion laws, environmental issues, foreign policy… the list goes on. Had the Biden admin not shit the bed so spectacularly there really would be no route for Trumps re-election, oh well! 
 

[downzy]

4 hours ago, Cosmo said:

I saw recent polls still place the dems behind Trump. It seems Kamala narrowed the difference, but didn't quite reach him. Hope she can turn this around. There's a chance Trump will refuse to debate her, based on his recent posts on Truth Social or whatever it's called. If I'm not mistaken, he said he'd only do it on Fox News. That would suck big time. It's in Kamala's interest to debate him, but he wants to maintain the current situation so he'll have the upper hand if there are no debates.

When Hubert Humphries was nominated he was 20 points behind Nixon. He lost the ‘68 election by one point. Had there been another week or two of campaigning he could have very well won. We don’t know how the next three months will play out. I think current polling is largely useless since Harris is strongly tied with Biden. But that could very well change as she charts her own path. 

[downzy]

2 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

Harris vs Trump is not much better than Biden.

We'll see in six weeks if that's true.  Harris needs time on her own, outside of Biden's shadow (which is something Biden never allowed her to do during their administration) to see how much better she is than Biden versus Trump.  Keep in mind most Democrats wanted Biden replaced.  They now have their wish.  We're already seeing fundraising records being smashed since Biden stepped down and Harris became the de facto nominee.  In the most recent poll Harris has 94 percent support of Democrats.  This is 5 percent higher than Hillary every received.  Maybe it's temporary, but the Democratic base seems energized in a way that's been missing the last couple of years. 

2 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

She’s very unlikeable similar to the 2016 race.

Does she have Obama or Bill Clinton's likability?  No.

But she's not campaigning against either of them.  She's running against Trump, who has his own likability issues (outside of the MAGA cult).

2 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

The Biden/Harris admin has faltered more than succeeded too, which is fresh in voters minds.

Going to disagree with the first part, not so sure about the second part.  You're going to have to elaborate how on net the Biden administration has failed.  If we're talking about legislation passed, Biden has been one of the most successful Presidents in recent memory.  But if you're speaking about how he managed the economy, specifically on inflation, well, that is a liability.  But there is a way in which Democrats could use this to their advantage.  If you look at Trump's policy proposals, they're highly inflationary.  Tariffs, bigger deficits, mass deportations - all will cause prices to skyrocket in various forms (goods, interest rates, services).  Democrats now have a candidate who can litigate Trump's policy proposals. 

2 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

She will run on “we have to defend our country from Trump, who’s a dictator felon etc.” her supporters will say “first woman president” and argue historical significance and defending America from Trump.

I think we'll see far less of the latter.  If anything was learned about Obama's run in 2008 and Hillary's run in 2016, a novel candidate helps themselves by talking about issues rather than the historical nature of their candidacy.  Obama acknowledged that he was black, but he never made his race a central plank of his election pitch.  Hillary's "I'm With Her" was a brutal message and made the election more about her than about voters concerns (which Trump's campaign rightly capitalized on by saying I'm With You). 

Again, it's far too early to see how the campaign will play out.  Maybe Harris makes the same mistakes Hillary made in 2016.  But maybe not?

2 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

I think the Democrat party has thrown 8yrs of mud on Trump in the hope something would derail him and lose him his support. What they actually did was reinforce their belief that he was fighting against corruption and made him godlike. 

Only to a certain segment of the population.  The issue for Trump is that many of his supporters don't normally vote.  He's spending next to nothing on voter turnout, instead diverting a lot of his campaign cash on "election integrity."  Trump's sentencing for his NY criminal convictions is in September.  You have a convicted felon going up against a career prosecutor.  Does that bode well for a guy who wants to portray himself as "fighting corruption" against someone who has an actual track record doing just that?

2 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

After the assassination attempt there’s very little that is going to derail Trumps return to the presidency.

Maybe.  But is anyone talking about Trump's assassination attempt right now?  Feels like the media has moved on.  Had he been seriously injured maybe his campaign could have milked it for awhile.  But we'll see.  Not going to argue that the imagery that came out of that ordeal was powerful, but how many Biden/Harris voters were switching their votes to Trump because of it?  At most it will help Trump mobilize his voters.  And that's not nothing.

2 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

I think there is a possibility but it would need to be because Trump starts self destructing again, keep him under control and on point

Have you known Trump to do this for longer than five minutes?  Because I've yet to see it.

2 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

Trump has regained ground in states he previously lost, right now he’s the more likely victor, for better or worse.

I agree he's got the momentum right now.  If the election were held this week, he'd likely win.  But 3 months is a lifetime.  Hillary was running 8-10 points above Trump in early October after the Access Hollywood leaks.  By election day polling showed her with a lead within the margin of error.  As I noted above, Hubert Humphries was 20 points behind Nixon in the '68 election three months out and lost by 1 point.  So much can happen between now and November that it's impossible to say with certainty which way this is going to go.  But at least now Democrats have a candidate who can at least take it to Trump, something Biden absolutely could no longer do.  That at least gives them a shot.  Because I truly feel if Harris can make this election about Trump by reminding voters who he is now (versus who he was), she's got a serious chance of winning.

2 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

The speeches will be fun if nothing else.

Did you watch his convention speech?  There are many words to describe it, but fun wouldn't be one of them.  He's not the same guy back in 2016 or 2020.  He's lost a step.  Like Biden, he has problems spitting out a sentence and often gets confused.  Some might even call him low energy compared to the candidate he use to be.

2 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

Had the Biden admin not shit the bed so spectacularly there really would be no route for Trumps re-election, oh well! 

Again, I highly disagree with this assessment.  The only thing you can really hang around Biden is inflation.  But if you compare the US to every other developed nation, it did substantially better.  On almost every other economic metric, the economy has been humming.  Some of the biggest growth in decades, massive investments infrastructure, lower prices for prescription drugs, 11 million new jobs, 50 year low in unemployment, the number of uninsured for healthcare hit an all time low, salaries outpacing inflation, booming stock market, crime rates (particularly violent crimes) have been plummeting the last two years, narrowing inequality (for the first time in a half a century)...  There are a lot more success I could point to but this post is long enough.  Sure, Biden has had some flops, but to say on net his administration has been bad is, well, just wrong. 

[Rindmelon]

Now the Republicans have the oldest person in the race I expect we will be hearing far less about them finding age an issue. Kamala isn't a tremendous orator but will be interesting to see a former prosecutor debate Trump.

1 hour ago, downzy said:

In the most recent poll Harris has 94 percent support of Democrats.  This is 5 percent higher than Hillary every received.  Maybe it's temporary, but the Democratic base seems energized in a way that's been missing the last couple of years. 

The more progressive elements of the party are more likely to fall in line this time around and support Kamala. Aside from the candidate the difference this time they have an actual frame of reference for what they are running against, they know what a Trump presidency actually looks like now. I still expect Trump to win but think it will be closer than it would have been if Biden had stayed in. 

2 hours ago, downzy said:

Hillary's "I'm With Her" was a brutal message and made the election more about her than about voters concerns (which Trump's campaign rightly capitalized on by saying I'm With You). 

The 'I'm with you' line was genius, it was the exact right thing to say to people who felt utterly disenfranchised by mainstream politics.

 

[Tom2112]

10 hours ago, downzy said:

We'll see in six weeks if that's true.  Harris needs time on her own, outside of Biden's shadow (which is something Biden never allowed her to do during their administration) to see how much better she is than Biden versus Trump.  Keep in mind most Democrats wanted Biden replaced.  They now have their wish.  We're already seeing fundraising records being smashed since Biden stepped down and Harris became the de facto nominee.  In the most recent poll Harris has 94 percent support of Democrats.  This is 5 percent higher than Hillary every received.  Maybe it's temporary, but the Democratic base seems energized in a way that's been missing the last couple of years. 

Does she have Obama or Bill Clinton's likability?  No.

But she's not campaigning against either of them.  She's running against Trump, who has his own likability issues (outside of the MAGA cult).

Going to disagree with the first part, not so sure about the second part.  You're going to have to elaborate how on net the Biden administration has failed.  If we're talking about legislation passed, Biden has been one of the most successful Presidents in recent memory.  But if you're speaking about how he managed the economy, specifically on inflation, well, that is a liability.  But there is a way in which Democrats could use this to their advantage.  If you look at Trump's policy proposals, they're highly inflationary.  Tariffs, bigger deficits, mass deportations - all will cause prices to skyrocket in various forms (goods, interest rates, services).  Democrats now have a candidate who can litigate Trump's policy proposals. 

I think we'll see far less of the latter.  If anything was learned about Obama's run in 2008 and Hillary's run in 2016, a novel candidate helps themselves by talking about issues rather than the historical nature of their candidacy.  Obama acknowledged that he was black, but he never made his race a central plank of his election pitch.  Hillary's "I'm With Her" was a brutal message and made the election more about her than about voters concerns (which Trump's campaign rightly capitalized on by saying I'm With You). 

Again, it's far too early to see how the campaign will play out.  Maybe Harris makes the same mistakes Hillary made in 2016.  But maybe not?

Only to a certain segment of the population.  The issue for Trump is that many of his supporters don't normally vote.  He's spending next to nothing on voter turnout, instead diverting a lot of his campaign cash on "election integrity."  Trump's sentencing for his NY criminal convictions is in September.  You have a convicted felon going up against a career prosecutor.  Does that bode well for a guy who wants to portray himself as "fighting corruption" against someone who has an actual track record doing just that?

Maybe.  But is anyone talking about Trump's assassination attempt right now?  Feels like the media has moved on.  Had he been seriously injured maybe his campaign could have milked it for awhile.  But we'll see.  Not going to argue that the imagery that came out of that ordeal was powerful, but how many Biden/Harris voters were switching their votes to Trump because of it?  At most it will help Trump mobilize his voters.  And that's not nothing.

Have you known Trump to do this for longer than five minutes?  Because I've yet to see it.

I agree he's got the momentum right now.  If the election were held this week, he'd likely win.  But 3 months is a lifetime.  Hillary was running 8-10 points above Trump in early October after the Access Hollywood leaks.  By election day polling showed her with a lead within the margin of error.  As I noted above, Hubert Humphries was 20 points behind Nixon in the '68 election three months out and lost by 1 point.  So much can happen between now and November that it's impossible to say with certainty which way this is going to go.  But at least now Democrats have a candidate who can at least take it to Trump, something Biden absolutely could no longer do.  That at least gives them a shot.  Because I truly feel if Harris can make this election about Trump by reminding voters who he is now (versus who he was), she's got a serious chance of winning.

Did you watch his convention speech?  There are many words to describe it, but fun wouldn't be one of them.  He's not the same guy back in 2016 or 2020.  He's lost a step.  Like Biden, he has problems spitting out a sentence and often gets confused.  Some might even call him low energy compared to the candidate he use to be.

Again, I highly disagree with this assessment.  The only thing you can really hang around Biden is inflation.  But if you compare the US to every other developed nation, it did substantially better.  On almost every other economic metric, the economy has been humming.  Some of the biggest growth in decades, massive investments infrastructure, lower prices for prescription drugs, 11 million new jobs, 50 year low in unemployment, the number of uninsured for healthcare hit an all time low, salaries outpacing inflation, booming stock market, crime rates (particularly violent crimes) have been plummeting the last two years, narrowing inequality (for the first time in a half a century)...  There are a lot more success I could point to but this post is long enough.  Sure, Biden has had some flops, but to say on net his administration has been bad is, well, just wrong. 

I'd need to look into things better to answer what they've not succeeded at but the continued polarised nation is equally on their shoulders. Biden claimed to want to end this and be a president for all, yet his admin continued all the same the rhetoric, then there was the leaving of Afghanistan, then there's the borders, then there's the middle east which has erupted...Trump wouldn't have been any better there (possibly worse) but the inability to check Israel during their "defense" against Palestine is a huge failure in the eyes of voters. When the US has firmly said stop in the past Israel has backed down, just like when Obama was having his inauguration and he told them to cut the shit. There's more but I just don't see how you don't agree that Trumps path would have been blocked if Bidens run was more of a success. Biden also has a lower approval rating than Trump, that's incredible given that it's Trump😄

[-W.A.R-]

Hopefully Kamala is more like Obama with Israel than Biden (who is uniquely bad). It's the biggest and most important issue that I want to see a shift on.

[Rovim]

not sure about Kamala. all I know is a lot of people are probably going to die if Trump is reelected.

[rocknroll41]

Apparently Biden is gonna do a broadcast from the Oval Office tomorrow at 8pm ET.

[Rindmelon]

I assume just a standing down speech where he puts Kamala over, would be interesting if he sheds any light on his health situation though

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

I never wanted an election to end like this one. Can't stand it anymore. So sick of Trump and his lies. All he does is attack his opponet. Why would anyone with common sense vote for this clown and Vance is a moron. He compares women without children as "cat" ladies. I take offense to this since I'm a cat lady and so is my mom. WE love cats and since they are special and very smart animals I take that as a compliment. His wife must be a moron. Sad.

Anyway, I want this to end and Trump to go far far away

[-W.A.R-]

It was certainly a dark day that our "leaders" clapped like morons for a guy committing one of worst atrocities of our time while he stood up there spreading lies and racism. I respect those who boycotted genocidal war criminals speech but I see what Rashida Tlaib did and wish more followed suit. It was far more impactful and courageous statement than not showing up.

[downzy]

Not inviting JD Vance over anytime soon if this was in my house:

[-W.A.R-]

I'm liking Tim Walz as VP now. The perfect contrast to Vance.

[downzy]

6 hours ago, -W.A.R- said:

I'm liking Tim Walz as VP now. The perfect contrast to Vance.

Yeah, he's been great at ripping Vance a new one.

I still think the odds on favourite is Kelly, with Shapiro a close second.  Harris doesn't need help in Minnesota, but if Kelly can delivery Arizona for her that means she only needs to win two of the three mid-west states. 

Still early, but the polling swing from Biden to Harris has been incredible.

Picking Vance looks like a worse pick with every passing day.  

[Sweersa]

Gun control is the most important issue to me, personally. (I'm an avid and responsible firearms collector and user, of mostly exotic arms, and I abide by the current laws and go through some extensive processes to have what I enjoy in my collection) And for that reason, neither of the candidates are palatable to me. But, Trump is less of a threat to that right than most modern Democrats are. Though, most of the annoying gun legislation has occurred through the Republican party. (922r related to imported firearms and parts and 922o related to registered machine guns) Neither of which did anything, of course, but they usually just pass shit to make people feel like they are doing something, without attacking roots of issues.  

Interestingly enough, Obama was the least damaging president on the second amendment in recent time, if you look at what he did verses what he said he wanted to do. 

Edited July 29 by Sweersa

[Graeme]

With the greatest of respect, I can't imagine letting a hobby become my number one priority in choosing who to vote for over making sure that everyone has access to food, shelter and healthcare.

[-W.A.R-]

1 hour ago, Sweersa said:

Gun control is the most important issue to me, personally. (I'm an avid and responsible firearms collector and user, of mostly exotic arms, and I abide by the current laws and go through some extensive processes to have what I enjoy in my collection) And for that reason, neither of the candidates are palatable to me. But, Trump is less of a threat to that right than most modern Democrats are. Though, most of the annoying gun legislation has occurred through the Republican party. (922r related to imported firearms and parts and 922o related to registered machine guns) Neither of which did anything, of course, but they usually just pass shit to make people feel like they are doing something, without attacking roots of issues.  

Interestingly enough, Obama was the least damaging president on the second amendment in recent time, if you look at what he did verses what he said he wanted to do. 

I'm curious why this is your number 1 issue? I don't feel there has been a time where any type of gun control seemed more out of reach.

[evilfacelessturtle]

On 7/22/2024 at 8:45 PM, Tom2112 said:

Harris vs Trump is not much better than Biden. She’s very unlikeable similar to the 2016 race. The Biden/Harris admin has faltered more than succeeded too, which is fresh in voters minds. She will run on “we have to defend our country from Trump, who’s a dictator felon etc.” her supporters will say “first woman president” and argue historical significance and defending America from Trump. Gender/race mean sweet FA in the running of a country though. Who can hold their own on a world stage, who is the better strategist to make good decisions in America and or the worlds benefit, whoever that is should be running. ‘Should’ being an idealist thinking.
I think the Democrat party has thrown 8yrs of mud on Trump in the hope something would derail him and lose him his support. What they actually did was reinforce their belief that he was fighting against corruption and made him godlike. 
After the assassination attempt there’s very little that is going to derail Trumps return to the presidency. Plenty can happen in the next 3 months, but I highly doubt Kamala can beat Trump, I think there is a possibility but it would need to be because Trump starts self destructing again, keep him under control and on point and she will have a very tough time. Trump has regained ground in states he previously lost, right now he’s the more likely victor, for better or worse. The speeches will be fun if nothing else.

And that sounds like a very pro-Trumper argument. I’m not. I don’t support him on many of his decisions, abortion laws, environmental issues, foreign policy… the list goes on. Had the Biden admin not shit the bed so spectacularly there really would be no route for Trumps re-election, oh well! 
 

Bruh... you're not fooling anybody with this "I'm not pro-Trump" routine. You're repeating every single right wing narrative word for word here.

• Female candidate "unlikable" because reasons (see Hillary)
• Declare anything that opposes you a "failure" (see "failing New York Times")
• Cry "race card / gender card"
• Pretend to be meritocratic while engaging in reverse identity politics
• Use the newspeak term "Democrat Party" instead of the actual name "Democratic Party" in order to divorce the association between the party and the concept of democracy
• Cry that the opposition is "slandering/libeling/throwing mud" as if it's not normal politics to criticize your opponents, and as if the GOP aren't way more aggressive in doing so
• "Your attacks only make us stronger!!!" copium
• Assassination guarantees a win because reasons, no I won't offer a single reason! Never mind that multiple candidates have lost elections after being shot...

[evilfacelessturtle]

2 hours ago, Sweersa said:

Gun control is the most important issue to me, personally. (I'm an avid and responsible firearms collector and user, of mostly exotic arms, and I abide by the current laws and go through some extensive processes to have what I enjoy in my collection) And for that reason, neither of the candidates are palatable to me. But, Trump is less of a threat to that right than most modern Democrats are. Though, most of the annoying gun legislation has occurred through the Republican party. (922r related to imported firearms and parts and 922o related to registered machine guns) Neither of which did anything, of course, but they usually just pass shit to make people feel like they are doing something, without attacking roots of issues.  

Interestingly enough, Obama was the least damaging president on the second amendment in recent time, if you look at what he did verses what he said he wanted to do. 

"Take the guns first, deal with the 2nd Amendment later"

 - Donald Trump

[Sweersa]

4 hours ago, Graeme said:

With the greatest of respect, I can't imagine letting a hobby become my number one priority in choosing who to vote for over making sure that everyone has access to food, shelter and healthcare.

It’s more than just a hobby. I’m not a charity. 

3 hours ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

"Take the guns first, deal with the 2nd Amendment later"

 - Donald Trump

Yup! One of a handful of examples. 

4 hours ago, -W.A.R- said:

I'm curious why this is your number 1 issue? I don't feel there has been a time where any type of gun control seemed more out of reach.

It’s important to me personally, and firearms rights, to me, is the means of the people to always have the power, so there’s always a balance, and respect between one’s government and the people. 

[Tom2112]

2 hours ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

Bruh... you're not fooling anybody with this "I'm not pro-Trump" routine. You're repeating every single right wing narrative word for word here.

• Female candidate "unlikable" because reasons (see Hillary)
• Declare anything that opposes you a "failure" (see "failing New York Times")
• Cry "race card / gender card"
• Pretend to be meritocratic while engaging in reverse identity politics
• Use the newspeak term "Democrat Party" instead of the actual name "Democratic Party" in order to divorce the association between the party and the concept of democracy
• Cry that the opposition is "slandering/libeling/throwing mud" as if it's not normal politics to criticize your opponents, and as if the GOP aren't way more aggressive in doing so
• "Your attacks only make us stronger!!!" copium
• Assassination guarantees a win because reasons, no I won't offer a single reason! Never mind that multiple candidates have lost elections after being shot...

You see, you probably think everyone that isn't beating that democratic party (better?😉) drum is right wing. By the way. Democratic party candidates call themselves democrats.

He got shot. I don't know why there's this push to make it less of a big deal. This "Why are we still talking about this, it was just a graze, other people have been shot before"  It's not like he cut himself shaving FFS!😄 Also it's not just Republicans and right wingers who think Trump getting shot heavily increased his ability to get reelected. I think there's a resistance there to hearing things that you know are true that you don't like. Of course it boosted his popularity. 

Race/gender card. I was talking about how they are obviously going to position her for the best chance of winning. What part of that isn't true and old hat? You might not understand how politics work😉 my issue with her has nothing to do with gender or race. It has everything to do with her believability and past choices. She's not going to win on the strength of her run as VP. So they will need to pull as many cards available to get the job done.

But....Nope. Not right wing. I just think both sides are equally moronic. It's like arguing whether coke is better than coke zero. Such a miniscule difference in the long term. I'm yet to hear a compelling argument that isn't heavily biased on one side or the other that makes me believe both parties are not at their core very similar (not identical, just to be clear). Ones a little more this, ones a little less this... Blah, blah. Policies on issues like healthcare, reproductive rights, and climate change vary pretty widely between both parties we can all agree on that, the other stuff is not small change though and that's where these two parties generally see eye to eye. What I'm anti is this attitude of "we have to elect anyone but Trump". That's just a moronic position to take. By all means we don't want to see another 4 years of Trump, the lesser of two evils argument is not going to do it for me though. 

I also swing heavily left on the majority of issues too, I don't vote for people who are pro-life, anti environment, hold prehistoric conservative views etc. So I really don't think your assessment on my political leanings hold up in any meaningful way. 

The best thing about your post is you do the exact same thing you're lambasting me for. Where's your counter argument to anything I said? Your argument against "that's right wing speak", that's not exactly compelling.

[Tom2112]

On 7/27/2024 at 1:42 PM, downzy said:

Not inviting JD Vance over anytime soon if this was in my house:

Great running partner🤣 he has to be removed, I find it hard to believe he was the best option available.