2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
I mean, how many times have the liberals celebrated Kinzinger? his is an actual Republican!
It’s because the alternative of trump is so much worst which obviously u can’t acknowledge .
Those sane and pragmatic Republican do see the difference and liberal actually understand that not everything that republicans likes are all bad, like extremist in the left like you think it is .
The big difference , yes liberal Republican under trump/maga (bat $h!t crazies)
Exterminated them so they all end up on the other side on opposite side of the aisle .
And obv right extremist like Luciom thinks it’s a good idea because both of you think compromise and context do not matter ….
It’s all black and white (binary) for both of you .
Get off the stage. Trump is waiting.
Translation - I'm the star of this show and you're eating up my time regardless of what you're saying.
I wonder if the police union guy still supports Trump after he embarrassed him in that public forum?
Get the hook.
Just watched the last night of the dnc that we recorded.
Kinzinger brought it.
I'll admit that when kamala was picked to run with the ball I was a little skeptical. But she absolutely knocked it out of the park.
Is it just me or is the democratic party the republican party of years ago?
Trumpism / MAGA has basically taken over the main institutions of the GOP, and turned it into a very narrow party. So what you're seeing is really just the Democratic party becoming a bigger coalition as a result.
As far as policy goes when people like Kinzinger comes on stage, it is more a pragmatic coalition than an ideological one. Meaning they are unified against Trump, more so than they are unified under policy or ideology. Which makes sense as Trump is an incompetent criminal and fraud, who shouldn't be leading anything. There is also the chance a new Trump presidency will corrode American institutions enough to end or start the end of the republic, which is a strong reason to be pragmatic.
When it comes to coalitions, it is always easy for the radical, because they'll point to the coalition and accusingly say "you're in league with that guy!", because radicalism is not pragmatic and does not need to do coalitions.
Which is fine, we need the odd radical view. However, anyone who has even a modicum of knowledge of government knows that you can't even put a speed-sign without compromise.
Trumpism / MAGA has basically taken over the main institutions of the GOP, and turned it into a very narrow party. So what you're seeing is really just the Democratic party becoming a bigger coalition as a result.
As far as policy goes when people like Kinzinger comes on stage, it is more a pragmatic coalition than an ideological one. Meaning they are unified against Trump, more so than they are unified under policy or ideology. Which makes sense as Trump is an incompetent criminal and fraud, w
If the MAGA-controlled GOP is a "narrow party" how comes polls give it the same share of votes, if not a tad better, than Romney had in 2012?
Maybe, just maybe, you are just making stuff up
It was kind of funny in 2016 when online progressives were saying Trump beating Clinton was a good thing because democrats would have to move left. Forgetting that if Trump was a disaster, like he obviously was going to be, disaffected republicans would become heavily targeted by democrats.
You guys are also forgetting that this should be a slam dunk for democrats. It's incredible democrats aren't 95% to win the presidency.
Incumbency, one of the best economy in american history, a convicted felon to run against you. A normal party with a normal candidate and a normal platform would be autowinning.
That the result isn't absolutely written in stone right now is an indictment of the democratic party and the candidate. They are so bad, so disgusting for historical american standard, so despised by the median voter, that not even with all tailwinds in favor they are a massive favourite against a ****ing clown.
How horrible can you be to be in this situation? ANY self-assessment of the situation by you guys at all?
Well, narrow was perhaps an unfair choice of words to describe a MAGA-controlled GOP. "About as politically inviting as a re-education camp " is better.
It was kind of funny in 2016 when online progressives were saying Trump beating Clinton was a good thing because democrats would have to move left. Forgetting that if Trump was a disaster, like he obviously was going to be, disaffected republicans would become heavily targeted by democrats.
Well, progressives have the political finesse of bull sharks.
You guys are also forgetting that this should be a slam dunk for democrats. It's incredible democrats aren't 95% to win the presidency.
Incumbency, one of the best economy in american history, a convicted felon to run against you. A normal party with a normal candidate and a normal platform would be autowinning.
That the result isn't absolutely written in stone right now is an indictment of the democratic party and the candidate. They are so bad, so disgusting for historical american standard, so
I don't know, I'd say that the fact a significant % of the US population turned into Trump cultists is equally if not more of an indictment of the American public at large. You honestly think someone like Trump enjoys anything more than a fringe following in any European country, for example?
Mike Lindell crashes the DNC
put in his place by a 12-year old
America's mayor is working for the my pillow guy?
Well, narrow was perhaps an unfair choice of words to describe a MAGA-controlled GOP. "About as politically inviting as a re-education camp " is better.
Well, progressives have the political finesse of bull sharks.
yes this makes sense if you just make things up. which you seem to do a lot.
I don't know, I'd say that the fact a significant % of the US population turned into Trump cultists is equally if not more of an indictment of the American public at large. You honestly think someone like Trump enjoys anything more than a fringe following in any European country, for example?
Man jfc they aren't cultists and 95-99% of them would vote republican with any candidate, same as for democrats. Stop the theater.
Trump approval in europe isn't lower than Bush was
Europeans are just a bunch of ****ing communists you know
no its an objective fact that quality of life, life span, education, medicine, technology skyrocketed in China, Russia, and Cuba. and that was despite all 3 fighting off technologically advanced murderous Western capitalist powers.
you can argue that it would have went up anyway, but we will never know. and there are plenty of places that have continued to be oppressed and exploited by the West. like, is the USA offering up liberal democracy to the slaves in Congo? lol.
and as addendum, qual
Without the USA markets and global capitalism that isn’t communist , China would have stayed a third world countries from the 1970s …
no its an objective fact that quality of life, life span, education, medicine, technology skyrocketed in China, Russia, and Cuba. and that was despite all 3 fighting off technologically advanced murderous Western capitalist powers.
you can argue that it would have went up anyway, but we will never know. and there are plenty of places that have continued to be oppressed and exploited by the West. like, is the USA offering up liberal democracy to the slaves in Congo? lol.
and as addendum, qual
The two largest communist countries, ussr and prc, both followed the exact same trajectory. Huge oppressive beginnings to their regime trying to collectivize land and industrialize. Both of them saw a gigantic loss of life in their cultural revolutions. Huge errors in land reforms leading to widespread famine and food shortages. Lack of respect for individual rights leading to huge loss of life in their attempts to industrialize.
Some of the largest famines on earth as well as the most brutal regimes leading to industrialization that was always behind their western counterparts.
Meanwhile the soviet union was actually hugely blessed, just like the US, with tons of natural resources for energy, so in theory they should have vastly outperformed the powers in Europe which relied on trade for their energy needs. Yet the opposite is the case and even in war ravaged countries they were able to rebuild thanks in no small part to the Marshall plan.
And hey if you want the US to go intervene in Congo, I would probably be on board. Too bad it seems like any attempt for the US to actually work closely with any African state (such as Somalia and Libya) has been propagandized as evil imperialism.
The main point, to tie this back to the election, is that markets work. So of course both parties are not going to be attacking “capitalism” as that would mean a complete destruction of anything resembling the American way of life. We should strive to use our resources in a way that gives everyone true equality of opportunity, but we’re going to do so in a way that is patriotic and allows people that work hard to build something for themselves. Kamala is revitalizing the American dream and shedding the pessimism of the extreme right and extreme left. It’s a big tent and we will fight for a better life for everyone, but we’re done listening to people that want to destroy the American way of life.
You had your chance to build a real political movement after Bernie Sanders 2016/2020 presidential campaigns and BLM, but instead you wanted to go back to being irrelevant by rioting and attacking the party that might have listened to you. Good riddance imo!
Just watched the last night of the dnc that we recorded.
Kinzinger brought it.
I'll admit that when kamala was picked to run with the ball I was a little skeptical. But she absolutely knocked it out of the park.
Is it just me or is the democratic party the republican party of years ago?
In order to win Presidential elections the Democratic nominee and party behind them have to moderate. At least in my lifetime after JFK/Lyndon Johnson went all civil rights. The only candidates who have won have typically been moderate and usually southern (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Al Gore - well Al Gore likely won the election but didn't make it to the White House, Barack Obama - who shifted to some moderate positions, and Joe Biden). So we are watching the Democratic Party and Kamala Harris focus on moderate points of view (like on immigration, support for Israel, picking an ex military VP, etc.)
The democratic party has many wings to it including progressives who would like to see health care be available to everyone (which the Republican party has never wanted for financial reasons).
The Democratic party itself is about allowing abortions (not controlling women) which since the late 1970's the Republican party has been opposed (when the Right to Life party joined the Republican party).
Most or all of the Democratic party is looking to make sure all Americans are treated with kindness and respect including minorities, LGBTQ community, immigrants, etc. The Republican party has a substantial number of people who are white supremacists, homophobic, believing Trump when he says immigrants are coming from emptied prisons and/or are mostly drug smugglers, etc. In my lifetime the republican party has never been for Affirmative action, Voter's rights (i.e., no gerrymandering so blacks are under-represented), allowing gay people to marry or be treated equally, having bathrooms for Trans people or allowing them to compete as their new sex if they were previously male, etc.
There is an anti gun violence wing of the Democratic party that would like to see all assault weapons banned (as they were under Bill Clinton for 10 years) and background checks on 100% of gun sales. This is constantly rejected by the Republican party and has been since forever or at least the past 30 years (and earlier like under Reagan there was no allowance of a ban on assault weapons).
If you are talking about the Republican party at about the time of the civil war then you might be right but then women weren't allowed to vote...
The Republican party has shifted far right and is continuing to shift far right. How Jeb Bush didn't win the nomination in 2016 is beyond me. The Democratic party has definitely expanded towards the middle but it has also expanded far left as well. AOC and her group for example.
From Reagan's time on the Republican party has been about reduced spending (regardless of the impact), lower taxes for the wealthy, lower taxes for corporations, etc. The Democratic party is for none of that
Man jfc they aren't cultists and 95-99% of them would vote republican with any candidate, same as for democrats. Stop the theater.
Trump approval in europe isn't lower than Bush was
Europeans are just a bunch of ****ing communists you know
That's a poll on Bush and Clinton, so I don't know why you posted it. Also, it's a poll on policy, not on the candidate. Seems entirely irrelevant.
The two largest communist countries, ussr and prc, both followed the exact same trajectory. Huge oppressive beginnings to their regime trying to collectivize land and industrialize. Both of them saw a gigantic loss of life in their cultural revolutions. Huge errors in land reforms leading to widespread famine and food shortages. Lack of respect for individual rights leading to huge loss of life in their attempts to industrialize.
Some of the largest famines on earth as well as the most brutal reg
Sry craise but china and the ussr hated each others more than they each hated the USA so it's more complicated than this.
They followed very different trajectory, with USSR being "less monstrous" than China the first 20-30 years of communism and then that reverseing after Xiaoping for China changed the rules of the game completly and forever.
Moreover the USSR killed a ton TO ESTABLISH communism. Then again after a while with Stalin.
China killed a bit to establish it, and a GIGATON after communism was ALREADY ESTABLISHED. A lot more than Stalin ever "dreamt" about.
Any accounting of China and the USSR as similar in their path toward communist hell is wrong.
It was kind of funny in 2016 when online progressives were saying Trump beating Clinton was a good thing because democrats would have to move left.
which progressives said this?
In order to win Presidential elections the Democratic nominee and party behind them have to moderate.
nah they don't have to, they want to
Approval of Bush , the part above. Approval of policy is approval of the person when an european is asked about an american president.
That's a stretch. Anyway, my point is that Trump would be but a fringe candidate in any European (EEC) country, and you have not refuted it with that. It's a hypothetical as to how a Trump-like candidate would be viewed domestically, so a poll about his foreign policy when he is US president is pretty irrelevant.
What also should be mentioned is that since the US is a de facto two-party system, it is good that the parties are coalitions.
In countries with multi-party systems political minorities can coalesce around smaller parties that can horse-trade for influence. In a two-party system this is only possible if the party is a coalition of views. A dependency on coalitions make it less likely for government to stomp all over you and it serves as a block for too much power in individuals or small groups.
The GOP has essentially abandoned this and gone down a very strict ideological path where adherence is all but required. Which means the US is, at least at the time of writing, down one coalition. This is very unhealthy for American politics.
lol @rick claiming the republican party shifted right when all measures tell us that republicans stayed in their place and democrats moved left every decade in the last 40 years.
Trans issues didn't even exist 20 years ago for anyone in the democratic party. You were a man living as a woman, it was your problem not certainly a topic for politics. This ALONE is an unprecedented shift to the radical maniacal left by democrats, with republicans staying normal (normal means "wtf trans?" as per the entirety of human history in every society until very feew years ago)
Clinton on immigration was like Trump.
On the deficit republicans moved FAR LEFT and democrats to the left as well. Clinton had the only surplus in what, 70 years?
Clinton wasn't pro gay marriage was he?
Can we stop the charade according to which republicans moved "far right"? can you guys stop lying on monumental issues at least once?
RNC just had a convention with a black ex-prostitute tatooed on her head as a speaker. Far right jfc
That's a stretch. Anyway, my point is that Trump would be but a fringe candidate in any European (EEC) country, and you have not refuted it with that. It's a hypothetical as to how a Trump-like candidate would be viewed domestically, so asking about his foreign policy when he is US president is pretty irrelevant.
ANY MAINSTREAM REPUBLICAN would be a fringe candidate in any european country except perhaps poland and hungary.
Most european countries are faaaaaaaaaaaar to the left of the USA which is why we suck compared to you on any relevant measurable element of society
