The US Politics/Elections Thread 2.0

[Tom2112]

On 8/27/2024 at 7:56 PM, Sweersa said:

I think in this case "resistance organization" is a nice way of saying terrorist organization, but to each their own. (I realize that the word and derivates of "terrorist" varies, depending on who you ask for any particular situation). The American patriots were probably deemed terrorists by the occupying British forces in the colonial America at the time, for example. But I digress..

What a messy situation all around with Israel and the Palestinians. Perhaps it's one of those ordeals where there's no peaceful solution, sometimes that's it. It sucks, it's not fun, it's unfair, it's ugly and horrible, but it's not the first time, nor will it be the last. Maybe the only ending is when one side annihilates the other, and any who are displaced become refugees in countries willing to take them in.

Hamas are definitely a terrorist organisation AND a resistance organisation.

And the idea of eliminating Hamas and then Palestine and the middle east will suddenly be on good terms with Israel is a farce. Eliminate Hamas and another group emerges, if Israel continues the way they are now then they will remain enemies of their neighbours in the middle east, and that means Israel won't be safe. Diplomatic agreements, put down the guns and bombs, remove the IDF from Palestine and stop the furthering spread of Israeli settlers in Palestine, Hamas needs to stand down from power and allow a government to be formed. This is a pretty simplistic 'solve the middle east plan' but this would be huge. 

I look at Israel / Palestine like northern Ireland, people thought that would always be out of control, with no solution and here we are today and there's peace. So it can be done, it just involves compromise and unfortunately the country that needs to compromise the most is Israel. The government there is so insane though I find it hard to see things resolving in the immediate future. However if there's a new less extreme Israeli government maybe things can start to be resolved. 

The one side annihilates the other scenario is currently happening, plus there's no way that Palestine or Hamas could destroy Israel. Their weapons are like toys in comparison and if there was any threat to Israel the US would have troops on the ground defending it, it's just not a possibility. I 100% disagree with other countries absorbing the Palestinians, and we all know that it would not settle the tension. It would just be displaced Palestinians in countries they aren't wanted essentially creating more hatred for Israel. You have to keep in mind that these people don't want to leave Palestine, that's their home and they rightfully believe in their right to live their safely.

[Tom2112]

On 8/28/2024 at 12:52 AM, downzy said:

The Harris-Walz campaign has raised more than a half a billion dollars in a month.

I think they'll be okay.

Money alone won't win this election though. I think there's a growing question about why Kamala is not being interviewed (one interview so far over a month in) and why is it that if she is there's so many hurdles, while Trump has a new long form interview every second day. I think people can see through the avoidance and work out that her team is protecting her from talking as it's one thing that will unravel peoples confidence in her. This is doubled down on with the debate that's been worked on, where the Harris team are trying to redo the rules from what the Biden team put in place (sit down instead of standing, have notes, unmuted mics instead of muted mic during opposition time). To me it comes across like a pretty unconfident team in protection mode. Obviously Trump has flip-flopped a bit too on this debate, but that seemed to only occur because he suggested three debates (one on his home ground, one on hers etc) and she refused the Fox debate. She should have agreed to the Fox debate as a sign of strength, it would have silenced a lot of the naysayers... well assuming she performed well. 

[downzy]

13 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

Money alone won't win this election though.

Nobody says it will.

But it does allow candidates to do a lot more to help them win.  Not only on voter outreach, but also operationally.  Well financed campaigns can spend money to get out their voters in a way that an underfunded campaign can not.  It also allows the Harris campaign to go on offence in states that Trump should win (North Carolina, Arizona, Georgia), thereby diverting Trump's campaign resources from states he absolutely needs to win (PA, MI, WI). 

In an election as close as this one, money matters.  It's not determinative, but you're kidding yourself that it won't have some measurable effect on the race.

13 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

I think there's a growing question about why Kamala is not being interviewed (one interview so far over a month in) and why is it that if she is there's so many hurdles, while Trump has a new long form interview every second day.

She's only been the presumptive nominee for five weeks; the actual candidate for a little over a week.

People don't understand how much work is required to roll out a policy platform.  It's not something that can be done in a week or two.  Harris's campaign isn't Biden's campaign.  Do you really want your candidate spitballing on issues that she hasn't extensively studied and considered how she'll respond?  It takes time, which is why the Harris campaign is rolling out its policy platform bit by bit.

Moreover, how's Trump's interview schedule working for him?  In the last five weeks Harris's has conducted little press while Trump has been in full court mode.  If you believe the polling trends (and I do), Harris's strategy seems to be working for her.  The more Trump talks the more people seem to remember why they don't like him.  If I were Harris's campaign I'd pay money to have Trump talking to the media every day.

Is this a sustainable strategy?  Probably not.  I suspect she'll do more media events the closer we get to the election.  But for now the better strategy is to let her ride the momentum her and her campaign are enjoying.  The only people who really care about the lack of media availability to this point are Trump and his supporters.  

13 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

I think people can see through the avoidance and work out that her team is protecting her from talking as it's one thing that will unravel peoples confidence in her.

I really hate this point because it's both misinformed and wrong.

Harris is the top of the ticket.  It's her campaign.  She's not letting "her people" decide what she does.  She listens to their advice, but ultimately it's she's the one calling the shots.  I've seen political campaigns up close (my cousin was Montana's lone Congressional representative in the 2000s).  Candidates are not puppets.

If Harris isn't doing interviews it's because she personally feels its in her interest to limit her exposure.  She's run numerous campaigns before.  She knows how to win.  She doesn't strike me as someone who is lacking confidence or doesn't believe in herself.  I firmly believe there's a strategy in place to game out the next eight weeks with respect to further introducing who she is and what she stands for.  This isn't a normal campaign.  Momentum is on her side right now.  

13 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

This is doubled down on with the debate that's been worked on, where the Harris team are trying to redo the rules from what the Biden team put in place (sit down instead of standing, have notes, unmuted mics instead of muted mic during opposition time). To me it comes across like a pretty unconfident team in protection mode.

Or conditions changed.  Those rules were negotiated because the previous candidate was an 81 year old man who couldn't utter a sentence properly.

Harris's campaign, rightly, wants to go back to how debates use to be conducted.  They know letting Trump be Trump is in their interest.  They want a repeat of Trump's 2020 first debate performance.  I guess you can view it as being unconfident, but I view it as someone who is better equipped to handle Trump's bad habits and wants to exploit them. 

13 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

Obviously Trump has flip-flopped a bit too on this debate, but that seemed to only occur because he suggested three debates (one on his home ground, one on hers etc) and she refused the Fox debate.

He has publicly stated that he doesn't mind having the mics turned on throughout the debate.  His campaign says otherwise.  So who is showing a lack of confidence on this matter?

I do agree that she should do a Fox debate if her poll numbers started trending down.  And maybe they will and she'll change her position.

But at this point in the race, it makes little sense to rock the boat.  The only people who care about this stuff won't affect the outcome of the election.  

[Tom2112]

5 hours ago, downzy said:

Nobody says it will.

But it does allow candidates to do a lot more to help them win.  Not only on voter outreach, but also operationally.  Well financed campaigns can spend money to get out their voters in a way that an underfunded campaign can not.  It also allows the Harris campaign to go on offence in states that Trump should win (North Carolina, Arizona, Georgia), thereby diverting Trump's campaign resources from states he absolutely needs to win (PA, MI, WI). 

In an election as close as this one, money matters.  It's not determinative, but you're kidding yourself that it won't have some measurable effect on the race.

She's only been the presumptive nominee for five weeks; the actual candidate for a little over a week.

People don't understand how much work is required to roll out a policy platform.  It's not something that can be done in a week or two.  Harris's campaign isn't Biden's campaign.  Do you really want your candidate spitballing on issues that she hasn't extensively studied and considered how she'll respond?  It takes time, which is why the Harris campaign is rolling out its policy platform bit by bit.

Moreover, how's Trump's interview schedule working for him?  In the last five weeks Harris's has conducted little press while Trump has been in full court mode.  If you believe the polling trends (and I do), Harris's strategy seems to be working for her.  The more Trump talks the more people seem to remember why they don't like him.  If I were Harris's campaign I'd pay money to have Trump talking to the media every day.

Is this a sustainable strategy?  Probably not.  I suspect she'll do more media events the closer we get to the election.  But for now the better strategy is to let her ride the momentum her and her campaign are enjoying.  The only people who really care about the lack of media availability to this point are Trump and his supporters.  

I really hate this point because it's both misinformed and wrong.

Harris is the top of the ticket.  It's her campaign.  She's not letting "her people" decide what she does.  She listens to their advice, but ultimately it's she's the one calling the shots.  I've seen political campaigns up close (my cousin was Montana's lone Congressional representative in the 2000s).  Candidates are not puppets.

If Harris isn't doing interviews it's because she personally feels its in her interest to limit her exposure.  She's run numerous campaigns before.  She knows how to win.  She doesn't strike me as someone who is lacking confidence or doesn't believe in herself.  I firmly believe there's a strategy in place to game out the next eight weeks with respect to further introducing who she is and what she stands for.  This isn't a normal campaign.  Momentum is on her side right now.  

Or conditions changed.  Those rules were negotiated because the previous candidate was an 81 year old man who couldn't utter a sentence properly.

Harris's campaign, rightly, wants to go back to how debates use to be conducted.  They know letting Trump be Trump is in their interest.  They want a repeat of Trump's 2020 first debate performance.  I guess you can view it as being unconfident, but I view it as someone who is better equipped to handle Trump's bad habits and wants to exploit them. 

He has publicly stated that he doesn't mind having the mics turned on throughout the debate.  His campaign says otherwise.  So who is showing a lack of confidence on this matter?

I do agree that she should do a Fox debate if her poll numbers started trending down.  And maybe they will and she'll change her position.

But at this point in the race, it makes little sense to rock the boat.  The only people who care about this stuff won't affect the outcome of the election.  

So you honestly think she's a strong candidate. I'm not talking about the candidate you prefer on policy or would prefer to win, just as someone that can actually lead. I just don't see it. I guess it doesn't matter because she is who they are going with, I just don't believe she was strongest choice.

I hate to agree with Trump but she doesn't seem like a leader. Like when I compare her to Hillary, Hillary was a fierce politician, I would have total faith in her ability to go toe to toe with any world leader. I wouldn't always like what she's doing, but she was fit to lead. I cannot say the same for Kamala and I'm confident that behind closed doors Democrat party members feel the same way. If she loses we will probably hear all about that, until then they'll be waving the Kamala flags in public.

While I don't have definitive proof to say this definitely happened, there's enough chatter within the Democrat leaning media and Democrat party members that suggest Kamala being appointed the candidate for president was not the plan after Biden, but media swirled around her and the momentum was too much to push against.  Not exactly a vote of confidence.

Now as for the debate. You are correct in your assessment, I think they are trying to let Trump tie himself in knots. It's smart, I agree. I just don't think it shows that she is the stronger candidate, it simply shows she can be keep her mouth shut.

My opinion is pretty straight forward. Neither opponent should have any advantage over the other in terms of broadcaster or rules. The debates should be held on a neutral medium, away from any bias and they could then be broadcast separately by every station. Sliding the scale one way for one candidate is unfair, but in this instance if Kamala gets her terms as well as her choice of broadcaster then IMO Trump comes in a position of power, he seems like a threat that needs to be neutralized otherwise he will dominate. 

Kamala knowing how to win is a stretch given her performance in the last run for president. But this idea that her policies are just being made in the last 5 weeks? C'mon? The policies are set for the most part. She will follow close to the line Biden has, that's what the Democrat party and their donors want. But worst case scenario given your opinion the benefit of the doubt she could have done  a fluff interview talking about her VP work and why she is the right choice as president. I think people are fair enough to give her a break in not having all her ducks aligned a week or two after her announcement, but 5 weeks? That to me suggests a campaign that can't decide what way the wind is blowing. And I do appreciate it takes time to get information and prep. My point is there's a huge gulf of difference between the two candidates, one is accessible the other is basically in a containment field.... Which again, this was the Biden tactic and it worked, let Trump talk. As for polling, it's still very close, and most of the swing states are very much in play so I think it's time to put on the gloves.

Edited August 30 by Tom2112

[-W.A.R-]

Pretty disappointed with Kamala's answer on Gaza. Joe bowing out gave Democrats a chance to shift policy but it's the same ol BS. You have been saying too many innocent Palestinians have been killed since at least February and taking about a "ceasefire" since March. When exactly do you consider a change in policy?

[downzy]

7 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

So you honestly think she's a strong candidate.

I think she's a strong enough candidate.  Could the Democrats offered up someone with broader appeal?  Sure.  But the perfect is the enemy of the good, and there wasn't a feasible way to run a mini-primary on such short notice.

7 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

I guess it doesn't matter because she is who they are going with, I just don't believe she was strongest choice.

Neither is Trump the Republican's strongest choice.  So I'm not sure why you're focus seems to be solely on Harris.  Parties don't always opt for the best candidate in the general.  But voters don't decide on absolutes.  Their choice in 2024 is Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. It shouldn't require the perfect candidate to beat someone as damaged and dangerous as Trump.  If Harris loses, that says far more about America than it does the Democratic Party or Harris as a candidate.

7 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

I hate to agree with Trump but she doesn't seem like a leader.

I'm curious: which female politician would you say Trump thinks is a leader?

7 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

I cannot say the same for Kamala

Why?  Based on what?  Did you watch her DNC speech?  She appeared to me to be in full command and came off strong.

The same was said about Bill Clinton and Barack Obama with respect to negotiating with foreign adversaries.  

Also, understand that how you judge and view leadership skills aren't necessarily how other people view them.  I'm not saying you're assessment of Harris is wrong, but it's partially unique to yourself and others who view someone like Trump as a strong leader (despite having no moral, ethics, or human decency).  Winning elections isn't about convincing everyone you're equipped to do the job; it's about convincing enough people to get elected.  Your assessment of Harris may very well be true to you, but it might also be one shared amongst a minority of American voters that will decide the election.

7 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

While I don't have definitive proof to say this definitely happened, there's enough chatter within the Democrat leaning media and Democrat party members that suggest Kamala being appointed the candidate for president was not the plan after Biden, but media swirled around her and the momentum was too much to push against.  Not exactly a vote of confidence.

You're right.  You don't have any evidence to support that narrative.  Largely because it wasn't "the media" who swirled around her.  It was Democrats themselves, who rallied around her as soon as Biden endorsed her and she worked the phones and locked up support from her most likely rivals.  To think this was a media orchestrated outcome is to not be too familiar with what the media was saying at the time.  Most of the biggest names in Democratic punditry who pushed for Biden to step aside wanted a brokered convention.  Ezra Klein, David Axelrod, many on Obama's election team - they all wanted a mini primary or brokered convention.  Harris was a party decision with little to zero public calls for an alternative.  

7 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

I just don't think it shows that she is the stronger candidate, it simply shows she can be keep her mouth shut.

I think knowing when to talk and when not to talk is an important part of being a strong candidate. 

7 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

My opinion is pretty straight forward. Neither opponent should have any advantage over the other in terms of broadcaster or rules. The debates should be held on a neutral medium, away from any bias and they could then be broadcast separately by every station. Sliding the scale one way for one candidate is unfair, but in this instance if Kamala gets her terms as well as her choice of broadcaster then IMO Trump comes in a position of power, he seems like a threat that needs to be neutralized otherwise he will dominate. 

The decision for ABC to host the event was done months ago.  This isn't something new.  Various networks are chosen by the campaign teams for every election.  There is no such thing as a "neutral medium" as you describe it.  There are generally three debates, hosted by three different networks.  They get cycled every election, with one or two networks sitting out per cycle.  Some times Fox News hosts (as they did in 2020), some times they don't (as they didn't in 2012).  Some years CNN is in, some years they're out. 

Harris's campaign has asked for the mics to be left on.  Trump acknowledged that he didn't mind if the mics were left on.  Trump's campaign has denied the request.  And it was just announced that the rules wouldn't change, and that Harris was still planning on attending.  She's not getting "her choice of broadcaster" as ABC was agreed upon long before she was even the candidate.

As for whether there will be additional debates, that's to be decided.  But understand that it was Trump and Republicans who made it known they would no longer abide by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), a politically unaffiliated non-profit who has organized every debate since 1988.  The reason why only two debates were agreed upon was because the Republican Party amended its Rules of Republican Party to prohibit any Republican nominee from attending any CPD-sponsored debate. 

7 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

Kamala knowing how to win is a stretch given her performance in the last run for president. But this idea that her policies are just being made in the last 5 weeks? C'mon? The policies are set for the most part. She will follow close to the line Biden has, that's what the Democrat party and their donors want. But worst case scenario given your opinion the benefit of the doubt she could have done  a fluff interview talking about her VP work and why she is the right choice as president. I think people are fair enough to give her a break in not having all her ducks aligned a week or two after her announcement, but 5 weeks? That to me suggests a campaign that can't decide what way the wind is blowing. And I do appreciate it takes time to get information and prep. My point is there's a huge gulf of difference between the two candidates, one is accessible the other is basically in a containment field.... Which again, this was the Biden tactic and it worked, let Trump talk. As for polling, it's still very close, and most of the swing states are very much in play so I think it's time to put on the gloves.

Presidential elections are monumental affairs.  You can't just wing it (unless you're Donald Trump).  Harris taking over for Biden would have necessitated a wholesale review of Biden's agenda and adjust it according to Harris's views.  That takes time.  A whole host of things are happening behind the scenes that usually take months (if not a year) to happen were now being recalibrated in weeks.  From going over campaign strategy, to reviewing policy proposals, to talking to donors, to hiring a campaign team, to vetting a VP candidate (in a matter of two weeks), to writing a stump speech and convention speech, to approving major campaign decisions - there is a lot that needs to happen that usually takes a lot longer than a few weeks.  And you think that what's in Harris's best interest is to give fluff interviews while all of that is happening?  To risk the groundswell of enthusiasm so soon and possibly put a dent in the momentum her campaign was riding?  I don't know, that seems like the wrong call to me.  And it certainly hasn't hurt her so far, with most polls showing that she has gained on Trump over where Biden was by 4-8 points.

Nobody is saying that Harris has this in the bag.  It's a tight race and Trump could certainly still win.  But when you're riding a wave, the last thing you want to do in the moment is find ways to fall off.  There were bigger matters to focus on in the first four weeks of her campaign.  It certainly didn't hurt her to avoid the press for as long as she has.  When you have a race against a candidate like Trump, maybe the best thing you can do is shut up and let him take all the attention.  We'll see.

[downzy]

13 minutes ago, -W.A.R- said:

When exactly do you consider a change in policy?

My bet is if and when she becomes President.

[Tom2112]

12 hours ago, downzy said:

I think she's a strong enough candidate.  Could the Democrats offered up someone with broader appeal?  Sure.  But the perfect is the enemy of the good, and there wasn't a feasible way to run a mini-primary on such short notice.

Neither is Trump the Republican's strongest choice.  So I'm not sure why you're focus seems to be solely on Harris.  Parties don't always opt for the best candidate in the general.  But voters don't decide on absolutes.  Their choice in 2024 is Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. It shouldn't require the perfect candidate to beat someone as damaged and dangerous as Trump.  If Harris loses, that says far more about America than it does the Democratic Party or Harris as a candidate.

I'm curious: which female politician would you say Trump thinks is a leader?

Why?  Based on what?  Did you watch her DNC speech?  She appeared to me to be in full command and came off strong.

The same was said about Bill Clinton and Barack Obama with respect to negotiating with foreign adversaries.  

Also, understand that how you judge and view leadership skills aren't necessarily how other people view them.  I'm not saying you're assessment of Harris is wrong, but it's partially unique to yourself and others who view someone like Trump as a strong leader (despite having no moral, ethics, or human decency).  Winning elections isn't about convincing everyone you're equipped to do the job; it's about convincing enough people to get elected.  Your assessment of Harris may very well be true to you, but it might also be one shared amongst a minority of American voters that will decide the election.

You're right.  You don't have any evidence to support that narrative.  Largely because it wasn't "the media" who swirled around her.  It was Democrats themselves, who rallied around her as soon as Biden endorsed her and she worked the phones and locked up support from her most likely rivals.  To think this was a media orchestrated outcome is to not be too familiar with what the media was saying at the time.  Most of the biggest names in Democratic punditry who pushed for Biden to step aside wanted a brokered convention.  Ezra Klein, David Axelrod, many on Obama's election team - they all wanted a mini primary or brokered convention.  Harris was a party decision with little to zero public calls for an alternative.  

I think knowing when to talk and when not to talk is an important part of being a strong candidate. 

The decision for ABC to host the event was done months ago.  This isn't something new.  Various networks are chosen by the campaign teams for every election.  There is no such thing as a "neutral medium" as you describe it.  There are generally three debates, hosted by three different networks.  They get cycled every election, with one or two networks sitting out per cycle.  Some times Fox News hosts (as they did in 2020), some times they don't (as they didn't in 2012).  Some years CNN is in, some years they're out. 

Harris's campaign has asked for the mics to be left on.  Trump acknowledged that he didn't mind if the mics were left on.  Trump's campaign has denied the request.  And it was just announced that the rules wouldn't change, and that Harris was still planning on attending.  She's not getting "her choice of broadcaster" as ABC was agreed upon long before she was even the candidate.

As for whether there will be additional debates, that's to be decided.  But understand that it was Trump and Republicans who made it known they would no longer abide by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), a politically unaffiliated non-profit who has organized every debate since 1988.  The reason why only two debates were agreed upon was because the Republican Party amended its Rules of Republican Party to prohibit any Republican nominee from attending any CPD-sponsored debate. 

Presidential elections are monumental affairs.  You can't just wing it (unless you're Donald Trump).  Harris taking over for Biden would have necessitated a wholesale review of Biden's agenda and adjust it according to Harris's views.  That takes time.  A whole host of things are happening behind the scenes that usually take months (if not a year) to happen were now being recalibrated in weeks.  From going over campaign strategy, to reviewing policy proposals, to talking to donors, to hiring a campaign team, to vetting a VP candidate (in a matter of two weeks), to writing a stump speech and convention speech, to approving major campaign decisions - there is a lot that needs to happen that usually takes a lot longer than a few weeks.  And you think that what's in Harris's best interest is to give fluff interviews while all of that is happening?  To risk the groundswell of enthusiasm so soon and possibly put a dent in the momentum her campaign was riding?  I don't know, that seems like the wrong call to me.  And it certainly hasn't hurt her so far, with most polls showing that she has gained on Trump over where Biden was by 4-8 points.

Nobody is saying that Harris has this in the bag.  It's a tight race and Trump could certainly still win.  But when you're riding a wave, the last thing you want to do in the moment is find ways to fall off.  There were bigger matters to focus on in the first four weeks of her campaign.  It certainly didn't hurt her to avoid the press for as long as she has.  When you have a race against a candidate like Trump, maybe the best thing you can do is shut up and let him take all the attention.  We'll see.

I mostly agree with what you're saying outside of any praise you're willing to give to Kamala. 

The polls have been wrong before, and there are conflicting polls no less that suggest the race is much closer. I think we're basically looking at a very close decision like 2020, obviously the momentum is in Kamala's favour though.

Honestly if Kamala came out and said something strong about putting an end to the ongoing wars, I might be more in favour of her. I don't think she will offer much more than the current administration... Which amounts to thoughts and prayers and lots of bombs and ammunition.

[-W.A.R-]

Kamala is the better vote no matter how you look at it. Trump is horrific on policy and a convenient excuse and shield for the Washington bureaucracy.

[ZoSoRose]

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

Kamala is the better vote no matter how you look at it. Trump is horrific on policy and a convenient excuse and shield for the Washington bureaucracy.

It’s not even worth a conversation, of course she is. It’s a shame there are so many stupid people in the US population 

[evilfacelessturtle]

On 8/29/2024 at 9:55 PM, Sweersa said:

I’ll show you why the second amendment exists

Just another peaceful, law abiding and rEsPoNsiBLe gUn oWnEr, folks!

The biggest proponents of guns are always the most angry, impulsive and violent people you know. 9/10 wife beaters own guns, while 1/10 charity workers do. Says a lot.

On 8/29/2024 at 9:55 PM, Sweersa said:

Anyone not comfortable living in an environment where free men and women can exercise their God-given right to self defense and the preservation of our republic which means yes it’s inherently more dangerous should move to a different country where everyone there probably wants to move to America

God doesn't exist and I do not have to confirm your delusions. Anyone who thinks there's an invisible man in the sky and life after death should not own a deadly weapon.

For the billionth time, a right to own guns =/= a right to self defense. You can defend yourself with any number of other tools or means. You know you're dealing with someone who has not thought this through when they try that old chestnut.

Also for the billionth time, owning a gun achieves the opposite of self defense, it makes you more likely to be shot.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/

https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-home/

Imagine buying a lawnmower and finding out it actually makes your grass longer, but continuing to defend the purchase and making your whole personality revolve around it. 

I also love how gun nuts think the founding fathers created the 2nd amendment as some kind of loophole to democracy where a minority can just overthrow by violent force the whole system they dedicated their lives to crafting. 

If you hate the founders, the country and the majority of Americans who support gun control so much that you want to overthrow the government by violent force, you can go ahead and leave.

Quote

No one has the balls to do this, because there’s too many of us. They know what would happen.

Engaging in violent threats to overthrow the government any time democracy doesn't work to your liking is fascism. Go live with your idol Putin.

Quote

My lawful interests are none of your business anyways. 

Huh, I thought "most people have committed felonies without even knowing it"? You don't speak like a law abiding citizen. You know that violent rebellion against the government is not law abiding behavior, right?

Edited September 1 by evilfacelessturtle

[evilfacelessturtle]

On 8/29/2024 at 11:16 PM, Tom2112 said:

while Trump has a new long form interview every second day

... with Fox News and other kid-gloves institutions.

And he's talking to them about toilets not flushing well enough, or attacking Biden who he apparently still thinks he's running against.

 

On 8/30/2024 at 9:45 AM, downzy said:

She's only been the presumptive nominee for five weeks; the actual candidate for a little over a week.

It's wild how quickly people are trying to attack her for not having a full platform or doing a full media blitz.

And it's such a feckless critique, too. The idea that anyone who isn't rooting for the GOP would give a rat's ass how many interviews she does is just silly.

Has anyone even counted the number of interviews Trump did in that same time? I doubt it's actually that different, but people just hear this narrative and blindly fall for it.

Also, no mention of the fact that Trump is doing way fewer rallies than Harris, and is avoiding swing states. Where's the criticism of Trump for that, "centrists"? Funny how they only ever repeat right wing narratives, and the left doesn't even bother making the same kind of weak, feckless attacks about frivolous nonsense.

On 8/30/2024 at 2:54 PM, Tom2112 said:

I cannot say the same for Kamala and I'm confident that behind closed doors Democrat party members feel the same way.

It's wild how you can go from "nobody knows anything about Kamala, where is her platform, why is she hiding?" To "I know her well enough to confidently judge her ability to lead a country and even read the minds of people behind closed doors". Which is it? 

And again with this "Democrat party" nonsense. This really exposes that you do listen to right wing media because nowhere else is that term used.

On 8/30/2024 at 11:01 PM, downzy said:

it's partially unique to yourself and others who view someone like Trump as a strong leader (despite having no moral, ethics, or human decency). 

Never mind that, how about getting played like a fiddle by Kim Jong Un and Putin? Trump is the weak man's idea of a strong leader.

Strength is not about roaring the loudest with the biggest stick. Only fools think making a big show of threats and insults is strength. Putin and Un fear a smart leader who will outplay them in the chess game of international socioeconomics. Not a loud buffoon who call them names like "little rocketman" while they convince his followers to oppose funding to Ukraine through social media infiltration.

Edited September 5 by evilfacelessturtle

[Tom2112]

15 hours ago, ZoSoRose said:

It’s not even worth a conversation, of course she is. It’s a shame there are so many stupid people in the US population 

Yeah but you also see how this kinda thinking is exactly the problem, right? left smart, right stupid vice versa. While this mentality prevails it's going to be like this every 4 years. 

I think there's a lot of stupidity both sides of the fence. 

[ZoSoRose]

3 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

Yeah but you also see how this kinda thinking is exactly the problem, right? left smart, right stupid vice versa. While this mentality prevails it's going to be like this every 4 years. 

I think there's a lot of stupidity both sides of the fence. 

No, I don’t see anything wrong with it when one side has mashed potatoes for brains. It’s trump… and they actively campaign to limit more rights than they already have

My line of thinking is logical and sane when you have batshit insane, idiotic people in positions of republican leadership 

I think it is reasonable to be against accepting racism, facism, sexism, and instability 

 

Edited September 1 by ZoSoRose

[downzy]

On 8/31/2024 at 11:51 AM, Tom2112 said:

The polls have been wrong before, and there are conflicting polls no less that suggest the race is much closer. I think we're basically looking at a very close decision like 2020, obviously the momentum is in Kamala's favour though.

I think the takeaway from the 2016 and 2020 elections with respect to polling is that you can't take them literally. 

However, they are useful in how they can spot trends.  We saw this in 2016 when the polls closed considerably as we got closer to the election date.  Clinton was up by 6-9 points in PA at this point in the race but her lead had shrunk to within the margin of error as the election drew closer.  This dynamic was also at play in 1988, when Bush held a large lead over Dukakis several months out but Dukakis had closed the gap closer to the election day. Many believe Dukakis would have won had the election been held a week or two later.

So while current polling is interesting, it's rather useless in helping us see who is actually going to win two months out.  The only thing they can tell us at this point is the race is much closer than it was six weeks ago.  And for Democrats, that kind of momentum can often motivate people to donate or potential voters to not sit at home because they believe it's a lost cause.

On 8/31/2024 at 11:51 AM, Tom2112 said:

if Kamala came out and said something strong about putting an end to the ongoing wars

What ongoing wars? 

America isn't directly involved in any current military conflict since Biden pulled American troops out of Afghanistan. 

[Tom2112]

10 hours ago, downzy said:

I think the takeaway from the 2016 and 2020 elections with respect to polling is that you can't take them literally. 

However, they are useful in how they can spot trends.  We saw this in 2016 when the polls closed considerably as we got closer to the election date.  Clinton was up by 6-9 points in PA at this point in the race but her lead had shrunk to within the margin of error as the election drew closer.  This dynamic was also at play in 1988, when Bush held a large lead over Dukakis several months out but Dukakis had closed the gap closer to the election day. Many believe Dukakis would have won had the election been held a week or two later.

So while current polling is interesting, it's rather useless in helping us see who is actually going to win two months out.  The only thing they can tell us at this point is the race is much closer than it was six weeks ago.  And for Democrats, that kind of momentum can often motivate people to donate or potential voters to not sit at home because they believe it's a lost cause.

What ongoing wars? 

America isn't directly involved in any current military conflict since Biden pulled American troops out of Afghanistan. 

Ah come on America is funding both the Israel and Ukraine wars, and has direct access to the leaders in charge with enough power to sway what they do. For example when Biden sent Boris Johnson to Ukraine to force Ukraine not to sign a pece deal with Russia in 2022. To me that's involvement to the highest capacity. They don't have troops in these places though. I know we can say 'that's unverified, where's the proof' well there's enough people that have talked about this including Zelenskyy's own advisor, on top of Boris Johnson making a surprise visit to Ukraine during timeframe of negotiations. I mean you don't need to have a tin foil hat to see what happened. 

As for the polls I'd agree entirely with what you're saying. 

 

[Tom2112]

20 hours ago, ZoSoRose said:

No, I don’t see anything wrong with it when one side has mashed potatoes for brains. It’s trump… and they actively campaign to limit more rights than they already have

My line of thinking is logical and sane when you have batshit insane, idiotic people in positions of republican leadership 

I think it is reasonable to be against accepting racism, facism, sexism, and instability 

 

You don't think there's racism, fascism, instability on the other side too.

Biden - pretty bad history of racism "I don’t want my children to grow up in a jungle, a racial jungle"

Democratic party - support of censorship online. That's a little ol' thing called🤔 oh yes💡fascism.

Instability. What angle do you want me to come at on this one. But obviously the biggest one is the same thing I keep harping on about and that's the warzone that's erupted in the past 2/3yrs.

As for the voters being dumb? That's a whole lot of dumb people. I don't buy it personally, I think we all know that there are incredibly intelligent people on both sides and incredibly dumb people too. 

[downzy]

9 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

Ah come on America is funding both the Israel and Ukraine wars, and has direct access to the leaders in charge with enough power to sway what they do. For example when Biden sent Boris Johnson to Ukraine to force Ukraine not to sign a pece deal with Russia in 2022. To me that's involvement to the highest capacity. They don't have troops in these places though. I know we can say 'that's unverified, where's the proof' well there's enough people that have talked about this including Zelenskyy's own advisor, on top of Boris Johnson making a surprise visit to Ukraine during timeframe of negotiations. I mean you don't need to have a tin foil hat to see what happened. 

As for the polls I'd agree entirely with what you're saying. 

 

America is partly funding both wars; but not in their entirety.

But you misunderstand what alliances are and what they're meant for.

America can't just stop supporting allies cart blanche out of some isolationist ideal.  The world doesn't work that way.  An America that doesn't back up its commitments is the day most countries stop making deals with America.

Biden doesn't need to send Boris Johnson to Ukraine to force Ukraine to do anything.  Not sure why you believe that's a thing.

Involvement in the "highest capacity" is the Iraq or Afghanistan war.  It is not providing material aid and intelligence. 

[downzy]

9 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

Biden - pretty bad history of racism "I don’t want my children to grow up in a jungle, a racial jungle"

This was said in 1977, and is without context.  He said without "orderly integration," his children would grow up in a racial jungle."

The comment was with respect to Biden's opposition to court-ordered busing (he supported housing integration over forced school integration).

9 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

Democratic party - support of censorship online. That's a little ol' thing called🤔 oh yes💡fascism.

 

Lol, no.  Censorship is found in all political ideologies save for blanket individualism (or unbridled libertarianism).

But if we are to take your logic at face value, if online censorship is fascism, what is censorship in schools, libraries and legislators who call for gun reform in state legislatures? 

9 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

As for the voters being dumb? That's a whole lot of dumb people. I don't buy it personally, I think we all know that there are incredibly intelligent people on both sides and incredibly dumb people too. 

I think what was meant by Zoso's comment is how informed supporters of each party are with respect to what their parties stand for.  

If you look at studies (here's one) of what Democratic and Republican supporters/voters believe or know about what their respective parties advocate for, you'll see that Democrats are generally better aligned to the party's stated policy goals than Republicans.  A significantly higher number of Republicans than Democrats believe their party stands for (or against) policies that doesn't align with the platform of that party.  

[Tom2112]

1 hour ago, downzy said:

This was said in 1977, and is without context.  He said without "orderly integration," his children would grow up in a racial jungle."

The comment was with respect to Biden's opposition to court-ordered busing (he supported housing integration over forced school integration).

Lol, no.  Censorship is found in all political ideologies save for blanket individualism (or unbridled libertarianism).

But if we are to take your logic at face value, if online censorship is fascism, what is censorship in schools, libraries and legislators who call for gun reform in state legislatures? 

I think what was meant by Zoso's comment is how informed supporters of each party are with respect to what their parties stand for.  

If you look at studies (here's one) of what Democratic and Republican supporters/voters believe or know about what their respective parties advocate for, you'll see that Democrats are generally better aligned to the party's stated policy goals than Republicans.  A significantly higher number of Republicans than Democrats believe their party stands for (or against) policies that doesn't align with the platform of that party.  

I think there's plenty plenty of other racial gaffes from Biden, regardless I'm not going to pin a KKK cloak on him for something said decades ago. The point was that if you look back through time things have been said and done that weren't great and can be deemed racist. Trump has obviously said some thing about Mexicans that definitely are racially tinged and could have incited racial violence, I know he was referring to criminals not ordinary Mexicans but there was a better way to say it. 

I'm not saying the other side isn't guilty of their fair share of censorship. But yes, it is fascism using your power to force Facebook to not run Hunter biden stories (especially given what they knew and what we now know), it's also fascism to use your power against people with different opinions, let's say putting someone on a no fly list. America is far from a free state, in fact its reach is so far they get to bully Europe and other countries too, or remove regimes they don't like. Not to forget the spying internally and externally which was amplified under Obama's reign. If you put these into text and just say Putin did these things, people would read it and rightly say that's wrong with calls for the ICJ, when a popular president or party do it then there's excuses and a rush to defence or just laughing things off as if these things are just part and parcel of politics.

I don't know, Zoso didn't leave much room for such nuance, I fell like I left a gap and he ignored the slow down sign preferring the kamikaze approach😄 essentially calling the entire other half of America brain dead hicks, and that's just not helpful in any way OR accurate. But... without looking up your response, I'm pretty sure I've read something very similar. I'm not arguing that a good percentage of Democrats are generally a little more in the know about the detail, while maybe the Republican side are more of a read the headline and react type. I would just say to paint with a lighter brush is all

 

[Tom2112]

2 hours ago, downzy said:

America is partly funding both wars; but not in their entirety.

But you misunderstand what alliances are and what they're meant for.

America can't just stop supporting allies cart blanche out of some isolationist ideal.  The world doesn't work that way.  An America that doesn't back up its commitments is the day most countries stop making deals with America.

Biden doesn't need to send Boris Johnson to Ukraine to force Ukraine to do anything.  Not sure why you believe that's a thing.

Involvement in the "highest capacity" is the Iraq or Afghanistan war.  It is not providing material aid and intelligence. 

I don't understand your point on the Boris Johnson point. He sent him there so Ukraine wouldn't settle, Russia would then have to continue in the invasion with the intent of weakening Russias economy and army. America benefits in several ways 1. sells guns, bombs etc. 2. America takes over the energy deals Russia held with European countries 3. Ukraine is forced into dealing with America and having American companies come in rebuild the country, but also buy up the natural resources. 

I don't know why Johnson was sent and not Blinken or whoever, maybe it was to avoid direct contact?

[downzy]

1 hour ago, Tom2112 said:

Trump has obviously said some thing about Mexicans that definitely are racially tinged and could have incited racial violence, I know he was referring to criminals not ordinary Mexicans but there was a better way to say it. 

Trump has a long history of racism.  From rental discrimination, to not wanting black accountants and employees at his casinos, to birtherism, to always calling attention to a judge's race in one of his many court cases.  I could go on, but there are just so many examples of Trump's issues around race that I just don't have the time.

Also, I have to ask how you "know" Trump was referring to criminals?

1 hour ago, Tom2112 said:

I'm not saying the other side isn't guilty of their fair share of censorship.

It's not about sides.

Censorship is a dynamic that has no ideological allegiances or affiliations.  It's present in almost every forms of political organization.  The presence of censorship is found in communism, fascism, liberal democracies, and anything in between (save for absolute libertarianism; something of which has never been actually practiced).

1 hour ago, Tom2112 said:

But yes, it is fascism using your power to force Facebook to not run Hunter biden stories (especially given what they knew and what we now know), it's also fascism to use your power against people with different opinions, let's say putting someone on a no fly list. America is far from a free state, in fact its reach is so far they get to bully Europe and other countries too, or remove regimes they don't like. Not to forget the spying internally and externally which was amplified under Obama's reign. If you put these into text and just say Putin did these things, people would read it and rightly say that's wrong with calls for the ICJ, when a popular president or party do it then there's excuses and a rush to defence or just laughing things off as if these things are just part and parcel of politics.

I really don't have the time, but your opinion here suggests you don't have a clear understanding what fascism is (and what it is not). Dominance over global competitors isn't fascism.  The presence of spying isn't proof of fascism.  The Hunter Biden - laptop story took place during Trump's presidency, I'm not sure where you're getting it that the executive branch put pressure on Facebook to suppress the story.

Putin denies any forms of criticism, both online and in real life.  Elections are neither free nor fair.  He imprisons and kills political rivals and critics.  How you conflate what Putin is on record with doing and what happens in the U.S. is beyond me.

1 hour ago, Tom2112 said:

I don't understand your point on the Boris Johnson point. He sent him there so Ukraine wouldn't settle, Russia would then have to continue in the invasion with the intent of weakening Russias economy and army. America benefits in several ways 1. sells guns, bombs etc. 2. America takes over the energy deals Russia held with European countries 3. Ukraine is forced into dealing with America and having American companies come in rebuild the country, but also buy up the natural resources. 

I don't know why Johnson was sent and not Blinken or whoever, maybe it was to avoid direct contact?

Except Biden didn't send Johnson. Zelenskyy has been clear that Ukraine would never surrender or forfeit any territory.  Moreover, there was never a deal in the making.  Little to nothing was agreed between The Ukrainians and Russians even prior to Johnson's visit.

You can read more about it here:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/22/boris-johnson-ukraine-2022-peace-talks-russia

 

[Tom2112]

13 hours ago, downzy said:

Trump has a long history of racism.  From rental discrimination, to not wanting black accountants and employees at his casinos, to birtherism, to always calling attention to a judge's race in one of his many court cases.  I could go on, but there are just so many examples of Trump's issues around race that I just don't have the time.

Also, I have to ask how you "know" Trump was referring to criminals?

It's not about sides.

Censorship is a dynamic that has no ideological allegiances or affiliations.  It's present in almost every forms of political organization.  The presence of censorship is found in communism, fascism, liberal democracies, and anything in between (save for absolute libertarianism; something of which has never been actually practiced).

I really don't have the time, but your opinion here suggests you don't have a clear understanding what fascism is (and what it is not). Dominance over global competitors isn't fascism.  The presence of spying isn't proof of fascism.  The Hunter Biden - laptop story took place during Trump's presidency, I'm not sure where you're getting it that the executive branch put pressure on Facebook to suppress the story.

Putin denies any forms of criticism, both online and in real life.  Elections are neither free nor fair.  He imprisons and kills political rivals and critics.  How you conflate what Putin is on record with doing and what happens in the U.S. is beyond me.

Except Biden didn't send Johnson. Zelenskyy has been clear that Ukraine would never surrender or forfeit any territory.  Moreover, there was never a deal in the making.  Little to nothing was agreed between The Ukrainians and Russians even prior to Johnson's visit.

You can read more about it here:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/22/boris-johnson-ukraine-2022-peace-talks-russia

 

Man🤣 Facebook recently talked about being told to block the hunter Biden info, who do you think asked for that favour? https://news.sky.com/story/mark-zuckerberg-says-biden-administration-officials-pressured-meta-to-censor-content-during-pandemic-13204139

And you can believe that there's no underhand dealings in government that it's all above board if you like. That just seems seems clueless to me though. We don't have to agree but my last post is accurate whether you think it is or isn't I don't care. The guardian is not a reliable balanced source by the way. 

I'm not defending Trump or any of the racist things he's said or done. As for the criminal question, I know that because he specifically said drug dealers, murderers, rapists etc. and then said that there are other Mexicans coming in that are welcome. What's your issue with that? I think it's sensible to have a border that checks criminal records

Edited September 3 by Tom2112

[ZoSoRose]

15 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

 

I don't know, Zoso didn't leave much room for such nuance, I fell like I left a gap and he ignored the slow down sign preferring the kamikaze approach😄 essentially calling the entire other half of America brain dead hicks, and that's just not helpful in any way OR accurate.

 

Kamikaze is the easiest way to argue on the internet, for sure. I am not an article guy, but that is just me. I'd rather just do the good ol' yell n' leave

I think a 2- party system sucks, anyways. Even if I believe one is more correct than the other, it creates division by its very nature and often leads to radicalization, but that is what we have so hooray!

Edited September 3 by ZoSoRose

[Tom2112]

54 minutes ago, ZoSoRose said:

Kamikaze is the easiest way to argue on the internet, for sure. I am not an article guy, but that is just me. I'd rather just do the good ol' yell n' leave

I think a 2- party system sucks, anyways. Even if I believe one is more correct than the other, it creates division by its very nature and often leads to radicalization, but that is what we have so hooray!

Ha! I'm fond of that tactic from time to time too, it's usually in gnr setlist debates but even if I disagree I like the spirit!😄

And we both solidly agree about the 2 party system being broken beyond repair, but you are stuck with it