2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
World democracy takes a step into autocracy I see.
GG America, at least you won't have to try and decide which idiot to vote for in future.
Trump getting 40% of the votes in Detroit which is 10 points higher than with Biden. That is strong.
Well they have been floating around reducing the amount of representatives or something crazy like that to make it impossible for Dems to win. They can also close a bunch of polling places if they gain control of state houses. They can declare emergency powers and not have any checks and balances on what they can do.
You forget that a lot of the American system is reliant on norms.
Is it constitutional? if the answer is yes, then what's the problem?
If it makes it harder for democrats in their current arrangement to win, they can you know... change policy platforms and candidates. That's what you guys told me when i asked "what are republicans supposed to do if democrats naturalize all illegal aliens" right?
SCOTUS won't allow abuses of emergency powers.
Of all the states left on the board, Pennsylvania is a must win for Harris. No other state is a must win for either candidate. Other than that, this crap could go on for hours to come.
I appreciate the wherewithal but shes not making up 300k votes in PA. Harris has even unofficially thrown in the towel by cancelling a speaking appearance and trotting out a devastated campaign rep
He will do almost nothing, just like 2016, except extend the tax cuts, end the bullshit war in Ukraine and not invade Iran. Better than the alternative
If he ends the war in Ukraine every country that currently doesn’t have a nuke will be pursuing it. Just too much risk to not have one. It’s the story of Ukraine vs North Korea.
That was the situation in 2016.
In fact i didn't comment your proposition with regard to Trump v Clinton. It was very fair at the time to consider HRC more qualified, under several axis.
But then Trump was president, nominated judges, wrote executive orders and so on.
After that it's obvious that in the Trump v Harris race, you can't use "overqualification" to describe Harris at all (which is far less qualified than HRC was in 2016).
You can despise many or all Trump decisions when he was president,
It's always been weird to me that Hilldawg is the exemplar of a qualified woman.
Her qualifications are that she is Bill Clintons wife, was installed as a Senator, performed terribly in the election. Blew it vs Obama and was installed as secretary of state, did terribly. Was installed as the nom and had to cheat in the primary, then blew it to Trump.
There are a ton of female politicians. In almost every other case, I don't even know who their husband is. I'm barely aware of Harris' husband. There are a ton of legitimately successful women in other fields who could cross over and it has nothing to do with their husbands.
Why they choose Hillary, who rode the coat tails of her rapist husband, as a model of female empowerment, is a mystery.
Anyway, Mexico is way more sexist than the US and just elected a woman. A woman was elected governor of TEXAS over 30 years ago.
Hillary and Harris lost because they lost.
Call me the crazy one but I just don't think its a good idea to hand over full control of our country to people who believe the earth is 3000 years old and that women are merely vessles for male seed
and the other side don't know the difference between men and women.
What a fantastic choice the American public were presented with.
Well they have been floating around reducing the amount of representatives or something crazy like that to make it impossible for Dems to win. They can also close a bunch of polling places if they gain control of state houses. They can declare emergency powers and not have any checks and balances on what they can do.
You forget that a lot of the American system is reliant on norms.
What's the alternative, naturalizing 20m illegal immigrants so the Republicans never win again? Either situation is bad in my mind. Look at California, no Republican will ever win there again, and here you are asking for that to be true for the entire ****ing country. At least you can leave California.
If he ends the war in Ukraine every country that currently doesn’t have a nuke will be pursuing it. Just too much risk to not have one. It’s the story of Ukraine vs North Korea.
Pretty sure the incentives to pursue a nuclear weapon existed before Russia invaded Ukraine as well, and after they invaded, increased no matter what the USA do.
Anyway i do agree that if Trump allows Putin to keep ukrainian territory that's bad. Same as it was bad when Obama allowed Putin to keep Crimea uncontested.
It's a significant negative of Trump but there is no way to spin that as being worse than psychopathic pursue of net 0 emissions in the economy or many other nonsensical leftist policy proposals
and the other side don't know the difference between men and women.
What a fantastic choice the American public were presented with.
Victor calling out Kamala for running on a "where the chips fall" platform towards trans and you think she was a far left gender denier type.
Wild times.
I think a lot of chronically online people fell victim to an endless bombardment of propaganda that made them believe a small vocal minority represented a large silent majority and that is unfortunate. You've been lied to and hold a deep resentment on a subject that ultimately you shouldn't care that much about.
PA is over
If he ends the war in Ukraine every country that currently doesn’t have a nuke will be pursuing it. Just too much risk to not have one. It’s the story of Ukraine vs North Korea.
Look, the war in Ukraine was always a foregone conclusion, the West (Nuland et al) was hoping they could bring Russia to their knees with sanctions but all they've done is cut off cheap gas to Europe and driven Russia even more into the hands of our real future adversary. I don't see the point in another couple hundred thousand dead Ukrainian men just so the defense contractors keep their wares flowing. Ukraine was decided before it began and Russia is a declining power that isn't a threat in any imaginable way, unless you consider China having 3000 more nukes a threat.
What's the alternative, naturalizing 20m illegal immigrants so the Republicans never win again? Either situation is bad in my mind. Look at California, no Republican will ever win there again, and here you are asking for that to be true for the entire ****ing country. At least you can leave California.
Long term solution is having naturalization laws, and electoral laws (all components) in the constitution, so the party in power can't change them to it's advantage.
Until that is reached, it's absolutely reasonable and rational (and legal) for the party in power to do it's best to cement it's power.
Is it constitutional? if the answer is yes, then what's the problem?
If it makes it harder for democrats in their current arrangement to win, they can you know... change policy platforms and candidates. That's what you guys told me when i asked "what are republicans supposed to do if democrats naturalize all illegal aliens" right?
SCOTUS won't allow abuses of emergency powers.
Because you know that anything is “constitutional” so long as the SC says so. It’s the same thing Reps said about Roe v Wade and the civil rights act. Or Bush v Gore or Trump in all of his cases. But I don’t know if Trump will appoint Federalist Society judges this time, he might want someone even more loyal like Aileen Cannon.
It would ironic if the Supreme Court was able to hold up the guardrails.
However there is also non-compliance, it has been done before by one of Trump’s presidential heroes, Andrew Jackson.
Anyway I’m not placing a high probability on this, probably 5-10% chance. That’s still a huge amount though.
Pretty sure the incentives to pursue a nuclear weapon existed before Russia invaded Ukraine as well, and after they invaded, increased no matter what the USA do.
Anyway i do agree that if Trump allows Putin to keep ukrainian territory that's bad. Same as it was bad when Obama allowed Putin to keep Crimea uncontested.
It's a significant negative of Trump but there is no way to spin that as being worse than psychopathic pursue of net 0 emissions in the economy or many other nonsensical leftist polic
0 net emissions is not the same as zero emissions fwiw
Victor calling out Kamala for running on a "where the chips fall" platform towards trans and you think she was a far left gender denier type.
Wild times.
I think a lot of chronically online people fell victim to an endless bombardment of propaganda that made them believe a small vocal minority represented a large silent majority and that is unfortunate. You've been lied to and hold a deep resentment on a subject that ultimately you shouldn't care that much about.
Yes, the bold is your problem on the left.
Even the "moderately leftist" position is completly unacceptable and horrific for normal (ie non leftist) people. Normal people don't want to spend a single minute of their entire life thinking about "trans issues". The topic should never have entered the political arena for us, nothing should have happened at all on the topic politically. Not a single regulation or law changed to accomodate the existence of trans people and so on. They exist and they don't deserve any special treatment at all in any aspect of societal life. Like people with red hair.
"moderately leftist" positions though can never satisfy the "real left". So you are divided among yourselves, while everyone else think you are all crazy
