THEDONALDs' natural instincts ate those of a Kennedy Democrat... along the the lines of Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan and Joe Manchin. Whatever you believe about those gentlemen, the boi-grooming/racist/greenbeaning nest-of-vipers that constitute the post-mod Democrat Party deserve your iron boot-heel, not your vote.
You're forgetting that vaccines CAN stop cancer that is spread by wifi. It's like an extra protective shield for your immune system.
https://www.mskcc.org/cancer-c... [mskcc.org]
This is who you people really think should be the leader of the free world? https://nypost.com/2023/04/26/... [nypost.com] “So, I think it’s very important, as you have heard from so many incredible leaders, for us at every moment in time — and certainly this one — to see the moment in time in which we exist and are present, and to be able to contextualize it, to understand where we exist in the history and in the moment as it relates not only to the past but the future,” W.T.F.
I checked out your politifact.com link. One page with 9 entries and the oldest entry being from 2018.
I checked out Donald Trump on politifact.com. 14 pages. 9th entry was from April 8 2024. Oldest entry on page 1 was August of 2023. Entries from 2018 started on page 7.
30 entries per page.
https://www.politifact.com/fac... [politifact.com]
This is who you people really think should be the leader of the free world?
Well, let me see here. One candidate is a convicted Felon (and would be a twice convicted Felon if the Judge he appointed hadn't have made a series of rulings in his favor that no reasonable (both Conservative and Progressive) Judge has made, one decision of which she was overturned and rebuked by a higher court and the most recent one which has no basis in law), is widely considered the worst President EVER elected, destroyed the State Department, nearly instituted a policy whereby all Government Employees
He's more than a twice convicted felon, he was convicted 34 times. There are potentially more convictions to come too, even the documents case isn't over.
That's on top of being found to have raped a woman, and his settled out of court lawsuits over his scam university and discriminating against Black people with his real estate business.
Here you go
https://www.politifact.com/fac [politifact.com]...
This is who you people really think should be the leader of the free world?
https://nypost.com/2023/04/26/ [nypost.com]...
âoeSo, I think itâ(TM)s very important, as you have heard from so many incredible leaders, for us at every moment in time â" and certainly this one â" to see the moment in time in which we exist and are present, and to be able to contextualize it, to understand where we exist in the history and in the moment as it relates not only to
Either people believe that our 'establishment' has integrity and is largely working in the best interest of the governed, or people believe that our 'establishment' has become corrupt to the point of dysfunction and needs 'swamp draining'.
What IS clear is that our establishment is only worried about one candidate getting in the way of it's actions.
1. Your leader makes a "selfless" act of contrition to help his party and his cause.
2. Waste it by installing someone significantly to the left of Biden who is widely disliked and seen as incompetent.
3. Cry like Hillary supporters circa 2016 when your candidate loses.
All they had to do was run a moderate who could easily win against Trump but democrats just can't help themselves so now they may well lose.
I gotta hand it to the media for making it seem as if Harris is some kind of universally loved unstoppable force of nature rather than past real world experience. https://rollcall.com/2019/12/0... [rollcall.com]
What I find most amusing is that the GOP apparently wasn't prepared for this. I actually like Joe Biden, but as soon as I saw snippets from that "debate" it became obvious to me that he didn't look "presidential" enough and that he had to get out of the campaign. It was also obvious to me that the best time would be as soon as the Donald albatross was fully locked around the neck of the fake Republican Party. I know I posted to that effect well before their convention. And so it came to pass...
Oh that evil "establishment". That has about as much meaning as those evil "regulations". It's all just overly generic terms like "chemicals" when we're talking about food that really dont mean a damn thing.
The problem is the people pushing these nonsense issue's solutions are advocating for things that are just terrible ideas. For instance, Project 25's plan to change a bunch of career bureaucrats into political appointees is the most dumbshit idea ever. This means instead of professional bureaucrats with
A wooden pole could get nearly half the votes against Trump. She just needs to show she is slightly more attractive as a candidate than a wooden pole, and she will win.
I agree, but I think her choice of running mate will also be a critical factor in the eventual result if she's going to beat Trump. They key with US elections is always to get the moderates on your side enough that they actually vote, and Trump's weakness is that his base alone isn't enough to wiin it - he *needs* most of those moderates that float between the parties each election to either vote for him or, in a pinch, just not vote at all. Harris comes across as generally centrist - by US standards, at least - in the European media, so a good running mate would probably be one of the up-and-coming and slightly right-leaning Democrats to try and divide the middleground between her and Trump. If she can (which is likely) grab some of the Republican voters who just don't want Trump as well, then so much the better.
They say the UK generally follows the US politically, but this time I think it's the other way around. The UK just took a good hard look at where the devisive rhetroic of the populist and increasingly far right leadership (by European standards) was taking us, and swung to a moderate left, contrary to many other countries in the EU, despite the rather uncharismatic PM that would result. We used to have a reputation on the political stage for being where people looked when they didn't know what direction to go in when things got dicey; I'm hoping we've managed to find it again. What we need now, across all of the west, is unity and a pragmatic approach to the Russia-Iran-China axis that can cool things down politically, not a bunch of populist firebrands that just want to pour gasoline on everything and watch the world burn.
Good question, that I'm sure Harris' team is grappling with right now. I recognise a few of the names I've heard bandied around, but several are complete unknowns to me but might be a lot more meaningful to someone from the US. Of those on that list, I'd probably go with Gavin Newsom, Pete Buttigieg, then Josh Shapiro based on what I do know, although from what I understand of the US political system Harris and Newsom both being from the same state may be an issue. Pete Buttigieg served in Afghanistan and
So a white guy from the right of the Democratic party?
You are wrong about the UK though. If you look at the election results, the centre-right Labour Party actually lost votes compared to last time when they had a socialist leader. The reason that the hard right Tory Party got destroyed at the polls was that the even further right Reform party took half their votes in many seats.
If there has been any real change, and I'm not sure things won't go back to how they were for the next election, it is that smalle
Male, yes, because misogyny is still all too common unfortunately, but not necessarily white; any suitably large demographic of middleground voters that they can fired up to vote Democrat would work, Hispanic, for instance. Of course, racism and ethnic bias is still a major thing too, so if you're taking a purely utilitarian and strategic view to get the most votes you can then it's all in the numbers, and white male may well be the best option.
Re. the UK. I think coalitions are a good way to form gove
If Kamala can have a good debate performance against Trump, then her chances are good. Given that she is a lot less likely to lie than Trump, she has potential to win a debate. If she can get in a "back and forth" open ended argument, then she will beat him because that is a skill she has.
Do you really think the Trump team will be stupid enough to let Trump debate Harris?
I'm sure Trump is willing. If he doesn't debate her, then the D team will exploit that to gain a single-digit percentage of the votes, which in this close race could be enough to win the election.
Eh. Her popularity (or lack thereof) in the swing states... I think she's looking at an uphill battle. It's early days yet (not that many decades ago, the campaigning didn't get seriously underway until about this time of year), and a lot could change between now and November. (Not least, Trump's health could fail. He's not THAT much younger than Biden.) Predicting the future is hard. But if I had to guess right now, I'd say it's most likely to be Trump, and it probably won't be as close as the last se
While campaigning or at a debate, if Trump says something along the lines of, "Harris is running on a campaign based on, 'I'm going to get Trump'. Let's say she gets me. What are you left with? What are you, the voters, voting for? Terrible inflation and record illegal immigration." Those are the top two issues that voters care about. If he does that, she's as through as Biden is. Enough people already understand that and because of that she's going to have a very hard time getting into the White House.
Given that she is a lot less likely to lie than Trump, she has potential to win a debate.
How do you figure that out? If your standard is just that something has to sound true rather than actually be true then it can make it a lot easier to win a debate. Sure, after the debate all your lies will be picked apart and exposed but by that point the damage has been done.
That's politics in the US. If you can't express the idea in 5 words or less the media is going to loose interest. Mass media is no different from Tik-Tok, 10-15 second videos are the most popular (then it's time for an ad).
And yet she is a successful lawyer. If she was unable to make compelling, legally sound arguments, she wouldn't have achieved that.
The debate between her and Trump will be interesting. We had a similar thing in the UK when Keir Starmer took over as leader of the Labour Party, up against Boris Johnson. Johnson is known for his flowery but hollow language, and his lying. Starmer is a senior lawyer, and used to be in a position similar to AG. It was quite brutal, especially at first before Johnson learned how to deal with being forensically examined.
I'm not optimistic that there will be anything like cross-examination in a US debate. The last one I watched (or will ever watch) was in September 2020 [politico.com]. In the light of the most recent debate there's a bit of a "What if?" for Trump supporters. What if COVID-suffering Trump had actually let Biden finish a sentence or two in 2020? To judge from 2024 that might have had risks... for Biden.
I think it's going to be hard for her to keep up with the lies in any face-to-face encounter. They may call it a debate, but that won't be the reality. He is NOT capable of any activity deserving such a label.
I think she should use a categorical approach: "Your last statement was a Level 1 lie" or "That was a Level 2 lie that would get you a perjury charge if you were under oath." The Donald rarely gets to Level 3, but often sinks to Level 0.
For reference, here's my personal ontology of the lies (derived from Heinlein, though there must be better versions):
Level 0: Self-contradiction. No need to check deeper, since at least one half is false. It is possible both sides are false. (Both forks of a contradiction cannot be true statements.)
Level 1: Counterfactual. "Any fool can check the facts." In the oath when you're sworn in, this is the part about telling "the truth".
Level 2: Partial truth. This is where most lawyers and politicians spend their working hours, especially when they know what they're talking about, though sometimes they are guessing. If they're good at it, they know what false ideas they are trying to propagate. In the oath, it's the part about "the whole truth".
Level 3: Deframing. This is where the top liars work. The context and meanings are distorted and you wind up unsure what color the sky is. The classic and simple example is "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" As regards the oath, this is where they break "nothing but the truth".
What disgusts me most about today's FAKE Republican Party is probably the projection. Whenever they say something especially vile, if you check around you usually find out it is something they are already doing, trying to do, or have not yet been caught doing.
I wasted a lot of time trying to figure out why the bulk of the suckers support TFG. I conclude that most of them just hate freedom because it's too much work. The only ones with rational reasons are super-rich and super-greedy, and for them the most important aspect is that the orange puppet is so easy to manipulate.
Start with her very first project, to solve the border crisis, and go from there.
Ah yes, just "solve the border crisis." Why couldn't she even solve a problem that is primarily a made-up problem used by Fox News and Greg Abbot to make people angry and upset, when the causes of migration have been around for as long as countries have existed?
Why couldn't she just solve the personal safety problems in countries that we don't control (without increasing foreign aid!) and also make farmers who rely on migrant labor not rely on migrant labor anymore, except without making food more expensive? Jeez. I did basically both those things just last week, it wasn't even hard.
A bit of a departure from colonialism but the US is responsible for a good amount of the immigrants coming this way due to a number of actions and policies which are much more recent than 250 years ago. Turns out backing rebel groups to try to create regime change and exporting massive numbers of convicted criminals to poor countries that dont have the means to deal with them are great ways to destabilize countries. Not to mention the cartels that destabilize Mexico get virtually all of their guns from us here in the US and they are able to do so easily because of our ridiculously loose laws. Oh and how about the fact that we dont go after people who employ illegal immigrants in this country? Illegal immigrants come for jobs, if there arent any available then they wont come. It's simple supply and demand.
There are even more policies we've pursued in Latin America that have also worked against us on immigration. This article covers this a bit https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com] .
However credible the reason, that still doesn't make it right to illegally enter the US, nor for the US to not protect the borders.
Sure, I can agree with you here a bit. My biggest issue is that none of what the party that is supposedly the die hard party against illegal immigration proposes will actually make much of a difference. Boarder wall? What a massive waste of money, Europe has essentially a giant moat with the Mediterranean and yet millions of illegal immigrants cross into Europe every year. What the heck kind of difference is a wall going to make when an entire major body of water cant stop this problem elsewhere? Meanwhile the Republicans are solidly against greater foreign aid to Latin American countries, are against common sense gun laws to make sure guns dont end up in the hands of bad people (like Mexican cartels who use them to destabilize their country), and most importantly you will *almost* never see a single significant Republican mention going after people who regularly and knowingly employ illegal immigrants.
I cant over emphasize how effective that last point would be, if there arent any jobs for illegals then why would most of them come here? As it is now they're virtually guaranteed employment if they can make it across the border. And honestly, who are the real bad guys here, the poor people who illegally cross our border to improve their lot in life or the American citizens with money who capitalize on their poverty and knowingly break US laws hiring them? My money is on the later.
So basically on the issue of illegal immigration I feel I'm faced with one party that doesnt do enough and another that only proposes non solutions that waste billions of dollars.
It's dangerous criminal gangs like MS-13 and the Sinaloa Cartel who are almost singly responsible for the epidemic of Fentanyl in the US (and the associated milllions of Fentanyl addicts and their frequent deaths). ICE have arrested over 14,000 child sex traffikers already this year...and before you label them as racist, be aware that 56% of border patrol agents are Hispanic.
Illegal immigrants actually commit crimes at rates WELL below that of native born Americans https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/1... [pnas.org] , https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com] . This has been known for years now although has been recently backed up by more recent studies.
This latest conservative push to make this a big election year issue is mostly based on lies, half truths and distortions.
The study you cited fails to control for demographics such as age and sex in its conclusions. It doesn't address the question of whether an illegal immigrant is more or less prone to crime than a citizen of a similar demographic.
Oh, that's what you're trying to get at? I'm sorry, I thought I was missing something crucial.
Not to be rude but what you're telling me doesnt matter at all. The claim that is being pushed by conservatives (and the inspiration for this conversation) is that illegal immigrant crime is a major problem. The data disproves that, illegal immigrants engage in crime at much lower levels than native born Americans. Perhaps if the age and sex make up of illegal immigrants was different the crime statistics would be
One critical step would be to enforce the laws that prohibit the hiring of illegal immigrants.
But business owners (Republicans) wouldn't go for that because they would have tons of jobs they can't fill and would have to pay people a living wage.
Not that I would vote for Trump either, but look at Trump's record compared to Harris's: Trump: too much to list here so here's a link: https://trumpwhitehouse.archiv... [archives.gov]
What has Harris actually achieved anything at all of note since January 18, 2021 (her time as VP ?) prety much nothing: https://theweek.com/in-depth/1... [theweek.com]
Despite COVID, Trump managed to keep inflation below 2%. Just since Biden took over: Totally botched exit from Afghanistan, inflation is at 5.9%+, the cost of living has skyrocketed, the border
The comedic value that Trump has proven that criminal behaviour and a conviction isn't a barrier to your country's presidency should encourage you to update or abandon your delusional conspiracy.
None of that seems to have anything to do with what kind of president she would be, or what her policies are. It's all just PR stuff, superficial.
If we are comparing, Harris may have "egged on" the BLM protests, but Trump egged on an armed insurrection against the United States. She may have seemed unprepared once or twice, but Trump can barely string a coherent sentence together. Kamala may be getting bad PR advice, but Trump is orange.
Everything the Republicans can throw at her, Trump is twice as bad.
You are right, we should be serious here and consider what kind of president she would be, and not focus on how she would act in the reality TV show that has become our election. The latter only matters inasmuch as people are ignorant.
Given what Trump was like last time he was in office, e.g. on women's rights and tax breaks for the ultra wealthy but not ordinary folk, and given she has been Biden's VP for his term, I think we can quite safely say she is the better choice.
We shall see who she picks as her VP, but when looking at who has influence you can't ignore Project 2025 either.
The problem is it's all hypotheticals. What scenario do you imagine where the US has a choice of responding with a full scale war or not?
I'd say the biggest concern at the moment would be getting involved in the Middle East as Israel expands its war. Trump has the US embassy moved in support of them. Harris is a lawyer, and the ICJ just ruled that the Israeli occupation is illegal and their laws constitute apartheid, but of course the pro-Israeli politicians and lobby (e.g. AIPAC) are very strong.
Maybe it comes down to who is more likely to so the strongman routine if say a US ship gets hit by the Houthis.
I'm not worried about full scale war, that will just end us. I'm worried about starting another Syria scale war. Trump largely kept us out of war, and Biden mostly did as well (although he is funding wars). Clinton on the other hand believed that force was an acceptable policy tool as long as too many Americans didn't die. Bush felt the same, but seemed to hope he could hide American deaths. So I want to know where Kamala falls on that scale.
That's fair. I would hope that the recent ICJ ruling would make US policy makers think twice about all this. And the migration of people from Syria to Europe, after the US action there.
Trump claimed he could end the war in Ukraine in one day.... I believe that; all he'd have to do is stop support to Ukrainians and tell his friend Putin to "go ahead". The fastest way to end a war is to lose it (or let the Ukrainians lose it). Her stance on NATO and the Ukraine should tell you what you need to know.
...except that in a 1994 agreement known as the Budapest Memorandum, the US GUARANTEED Ukraine's security in exchange for Ukraine giving up it's nuclear weapons, which they duly did. Once the US got what it wanted, Trump now wants to just leave Ukraine to the sharks. Fuck Trump for intending to dishonorably welch on an international security deal between countries.
If Trump stops support for Ukraine, no other country will (or should) ever take any US security agreements seriously ever again.
If you're taking an "America First" approach to international relations, the question comes around to, "What's in it for America if Ukraine gives up the eastern half of the country?" There's three factors involved here. There's an attitude from a large population in the US of, "Why is this my problem?" This is the Trump position. There's the NATO attitude of, "russia has previously taking large swaths of countries to the east of us" even before WWII and then there's the russian attitude of, "Western Europe
I too get where Trump is coming from, and I agree with your points, but however sane they are and however you rationalize it, that doesn't mean the US can or should just welch on a deal.
If you read the Budapest Memorandum, what it says is that any security issues in Ukraine will be solved in the UN. The US doesn't do treaties that automatically trigger it to enter a war, because that is how WW1 started.
Sure and as the US is at least a part of the UN (and we all know that due to it's size and economic power, in reality the US's arms supplies and nuclear threat represent the major part), the US are both morally and legally bound to continue to support Ukraine per the agreement signed by president Bill Clinton. Apart from anything else, not honoring presidential agreements would be the road to hell for the US.
Oh gosh, they are morally bound perhaps, but they are not legally bound. Seriously, read the Budapest Memorandum before responding because otherwise you'll just be ignorant.
She should set up an independent/hands-off organisation that would fact-check Trump's speeches, something along the lines of BBC Verify [bbc.co.uk]. They should also verify Kamala's speeches; yes I expect that she will fail occasionally (it is very hard to not make mistakes when speaking off the cuff) but, hopefully, at a far lower rate than Trump.
Trump would find this difficult to complain about as by so doing he would be drawing attention to his lies. Some of his faithful followers will claim that the Verify organisa
There are lots of organizations that already do that. Trump supporters just say they have a liberal bias because they once said climate change exists and then disregard everything else regardless of how well researched or sourced it is
There's different kinds of liars. The Trump style of liar lies about the things he doesn't need to and covers up the things he doesn't need to. The politician type of liar lies about everything to the extent that you can't determine fact from fiction.
I think it comes off as obnoxious and suspect it is ineffective at persuading people who didn't like Biden on style or substance to like Harris on style or substance.
Exactly. Actual leftists in America are not huge fans of the democratic party, they're just who we're stuck with because there is no actual leftist party here. At the very most democrats are center left on social issues. On economic issues they're hardly leftist at all, they're just less right wing than absurd state the modern Republican party find itself in.
Missing option (Score:2)
"Who the hell can tell, with one side not even currently having a candidate officially selected and the votes probably very close regardless?"
What's the deal with Slashdot polls nowadays? (Score:4, Insightful)
First, there haven't been CowboyNeal options for the past several polls. I don't like it, but I've finally come to terms with that.
However, especially with this one - how could they not include something like "I stand with Kodos"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What's the deal with Slashdot polls nowadays? (Score:4, Funny)
I thought John F. Kennedy was the CowboyNeal option. Then reality hit me.
Cowboy Neal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why wasn't this an option on the poll?!?
predict and hope are different (Score:2)
I predict Trump but I'd hope for RFK. I already know that realistically he stands no chance though.
Re: predict and hope are different (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Compared to Trump and Harris I'd take that any day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't RFK a conspiracy theorist? We don't need a candidate who thinks wifi causes brain cancer.
And an anti-vaxxer, so he wouldn't even try and prevent the brain cancer.
Re: predict and hope are different (Score:5, Interesting)
Brain cancer isn't contagious, and cannot be prevented by vaccination, Dr. Fauci.
Re: predict and hope are different (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's not true. Here's an article from 2017 about his anti-vax activity from 2005:
How Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Distorted Vaccine Science [scientificamerican.com]
dO YouR oWn rESearCh, indeed.
All of them. (Score:2)
List of Kamala Harris lies (Score:5, Interesting)
Here you go
https://www.politifact.com/fac... [politifact.com]
This is who you people really think should be the leader of the free world?
https://nypost.com/2023/04/26/... [nypost.com]
“So, I think it’s very important, as you have heard from so many incredible leaders, for us at every moment in time — and certainly this one — to see the moment in time in which we exist and are present, and to be able to contextualize it, to understand where we exist in the history and in the moment as it relates not only to the past but the future,”
W.T.F.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:List of Trump lies won't fit on the Web (Score:2)
If you have to feed the troll, you don't have to propagate the Subject.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the canonical list of Trump's lies hasn't been updated since 2021 when he left office:
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here you go https://www.politifact.com/fac... [politifact.com]
This is who you people really think should be the leader of the free world?
Well, let me see here. One candidate is a convicted Felon (and would be a twice convicted Felon if the Judge he appointed hadn't have made a series of rulings in his favor that no reasonable (both Conservative and Progressive) Judge has made, one decision of which she was overturned and rebuked by a higher court and the most recent one which has no basis in law), is widely considered the worst President EVER elected, destroyed the State Department, nearly instituted a policy whereby all Government Employees
Re: (Score:2)
He's more than a twice convicted felon, he was convicted 34 times. There are potentially more convictions to come too, even the documents case isn't over.
That's on top of being found to have raped a woman, and his settled out of court lawsuits over his scam university and discriminating against Black people with his real estate business.
Re: List of Kamala Harris lies (Score:2)
Someone's been at the whacky tobaccy. Possibly her mother during pregnancy. It was the 60s in Berkeley after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Reasoned Discussion (Score:3)
Do not blame me (Score:2)
This pool is...unrepresentative (Score:5, Insightful)
Not possible that the audience here has so little brains.The poll asks "who is going to win" not "who do I want to win"; did you confuse the two?
So, are you lying, people, or the Chinese bots are in force today?
Worldview... (Score:3)
Either people believe that our 'establishment' has integrity and is largely working in the best interest of the governed, or people believe that our 'establishment' has become corrupt to the point of dysfunction and needs 'swamp draining'.
What IS clear is that our establishment is only worried about one candidate getting in the way of it's actions.
Who approved this flamebait? (Score:2)
Cleary Michelle Obama (Score:2)
How to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Your leader makes a "selfless" act of contrition to help his party and his cause.
2. Waste it by installing someone significantly to the left of Biden who is widely disliked and seen as incompetent.
3. Cry like Hillary supporters circa 2016 when your candidate loses.
All they had to do was run a moderate who could easily win against Trump but democrats just can't help themselves so now they may well lose.
I gotta hand it to the media for making it seem as if Harris is some kind of universally loved unstoppable force of nature rather than past real world experience.
https://rollcall.com/2019/12/0... [rollcall.com]
Re: Kamala Harris started as Willie Brown's mistre (Score:2, Insightful)
Hehe. Trump fucks a porn star and *she's* the one trying to brag about it.
Willie Brown fucks some second-fiddle ADA and no one cares.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would anyone care? WTF is Willie Brown?
Re: Kamala Harris started as Willie Brown's mistr (Score:2)
Re: Kamala Harris started as Willie Brown's mist (Score:3)
Most women her age have seen brown willies regardless of if they intend or not.
Re: yes but [not who we wanted to fight!] (Score:3)
What I find most amusing is that the GOP apparently wasn't prepared for this. I actually like Joe Biden, but as soon as I saw snippets from that "debate" it became obvious to me that he didn't look "presidential" enough and that he had to get out of the campaign. It was also obvious to me that the best time would be as soon as the Donald albatross was fully locked around the neck of the fake Republican Party. I know I posted to that effect well before their convention. And so it came to pass...
And yet the "
Re: (Score:3)
Oh that evil "establishment". That has about as much meaning as those evil "regulations". It's all just overly generic terms like "chemicals" when we're talking about food that really dont mean a damn thing.
The problem is the people pushing these nonsense issue's solutions are advocating for things that are just terrible ideas. For instance, Project 25's plan to change a bunch of career bureaucrats into political appointees is the most dumbshit idea ever. This means instead of professional bureaucrats with
Re: yes but (Score:3)
You seem to not understand the economy very well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Remind me, how many delegates she got in 2020?..
Re: Kamala (Score:2)
Re:Kamala (Score:4, Insightful)
They say the UK generally follows the US politically, but this time I think it's the other way around. The UK just took a good hard look at where the devisive rhetroic of the populist and increasingly far right leadership (by European standards) was taking us, and swung to a moderate left, contrary to many other countries in the EU, despite the rather uncharismatic PM that would result. We used to have a reputation on the political stage for being where people looked when they didn't know what direction to go in when things got dicey; I'm hoping we've managed to find it again. What we need now, across all of the west, is unity and a pragmatic approach to the Russia-Iran-China axis that can cool things down politically, not a bunch of populist firebrands that just want to pour gasoline on everything and watch the world burn.
Re: Kamala (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So a white guy from the right of the Democratic party?
You are wrong about the UK though. If you look at the election results, the centre-right Labour Party actually lost votes compared to last time when they had a socialist leader. The reason that the hard right Tory Party got destroyed at the polls was that the even further right Reform party took half their votes in many seats.
If there has been any real change, and I'm not sure things won't go back to how they were for the next election, it is that smalle
Re: (Score:2)
Re. the UK. I think coalitions are a good way to form gove
Re: (Score:2)
If Kamala can have a good debate performance against Trump, then her chances are good. Given that she is a lot less likely to lie than Trump, she has potential to win a debate. If she can get in a "back and forth" open ended argument, then she will beat him because that is a skill she has.
Do you really think the Trump team will be stupid enough to let Trump debate Harris?
Re: Kamala (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's early days yet (not that many decades ago, the campaigning didn't get seriously underway until about this time of year), and a lot could change between now and November. (Not least, Trump's health could fail. He's not THAT much younger than Biden.) Predicting the future is hard. But if I had to guess right now, I'd say it's most likely to be Trump, and it probably won't be as close as the last se
Re: Kamala (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Kamala (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given that she is a lot less likely to lie than Trump, she has potential to win a debate.
How do you figure that out? If your standard is just that something has to sound true rather than actually be true then it can make it a lot easier to win a debate. Sure, after the debate all your lies will be picked apart and exposed but by that point the damage has been done.
Re: Kamala (Score:2)
Re: Kamala (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Kamala (Score:4, Funny)
She can barely put a sentence together, which probably helps bring her lie count down.
Seriously, now that Biden's dropped out - at some point you're gonna need to update your material.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just gonna leave this here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: Kamala (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We've come full circle. Art parodies Life which parodies Art. You can't make this shit up anymore.
Re: Kamala (Score:2)
Trump is a walking talking word salad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Kamala (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet she is a successful lawyer. If she was unable to make compelling, legally sound arguments, she wouldn't have achieved that.
The debate between her and Trump will be interesting. We had a similar thing in the UK when Keir Starmer took over as leader of the Labour Party, up against Boris Johnson. Johnson is known for his flowery but hollow language, and his lying. Starmer is a senior lawyer, and used to be in a position similar to AG. It was quite brutal, especially at first before Johnson learned how to deal with being forensically examined.
Re: (Score:2)
We had a similar thing in the UK
I'm not optimistic that there will be anything like cross-examination in a US debate. The last one I watched (or will ever watch) was in September 2020 [politico.com]. In the light of the most recent debate there's a bit of a "What if?" for Trump supporters. What if COVID-suffering Trump had actually let Biden finish a sentence or two in 2020? To judge from 2024 that might have had risks... for Biden.
Re: Kamala will have trouble keeping up... (Score:4, Interesting)
I think it's going to be hard for her to keep up with the lies in any face-to-face encounter. They may call it a debate, but that won't be the reality. He is NOT capable of any activity deserving such a label.
I think she should use a categorical approach: "Your last statement was a Level 1 lie" or "That was a Level 2 lie that would get you a perjury charge if you were under oath." The Donald rarely gets to Level 3, but often sinks to Level 0.
For reference, here's my personal ontology of the lies (derived from Heinlein, though there must be better versions):
Level 0: Self-contradiction. No need to check deeper, since at least one half is false. It is possible both sides are false. (Both forks of a contradiction cannot be true statements.)
Level 1: Counterfactual. "Any fool can check the facts." In the oath when you're sworn in, this is the part about telling "the truth".
Level 2: Partial truth. This is where most lawyers and politicians spend their working hours, especially when they know what they're talking about, though sometimes they are guessing. If they're good at it, they know what false ideas they are trying to propagate. In the oath, it's the part about "the whole truth".
Level 3: Deframing. This is where the top liars work. The context and meanings are distorted and you wind up unsure what color the sky is. The classic and simple example is "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" As regards the oath, this is where they break "nothing but the truth".
What disgusts me most about today's FAKE Republican Party is probably the projection. Whenever they say something especially vile, if you check around you usually find out it is something they are already doing, trying to do, or have not yet been caught doing.
I wasted a lot of time trying to figure out why the bulk of the suckers support TFG. I conclude that most of them just hate freedom because it's too much work. The only ones with rational reasons are super-rich and super-greedy, and for them the most important aspect is that the orange puppet is so easy to manipulate.
Re: (Score:2)
NAK
Re: Kamala (Score:4, Insightful)
Start with her very first project, to solve the border crisis, and go from there.
Ah yes, just "solve the border crisis." Why couldn't she even solve a problem that is primarily a made-up problem used by Fox News and Greg Abbot to make people angry and upset, when the causes of migration have been around for as long as countries have existed?
Why couldn't she just solve the personal safety problems in countries that we don't control (without increasing foreign aid!) and also make farmers who rely on migrant labor not rely on migrant labor anymore, except without making food more expensive? Jeez. I did basically both those things just last week, it wasn't even hard.
Last I heard she couldn't even divide by zero.
Re: Kamala (Score:4, Insightful)
After you engaged in human trafficking you mean?
The migrant crisis is real, but it's caused by colonialism, and we are recently the ones who did the most damage.
Re: Kamala (Score:4, Insightful)
A bit of a departure from colonialism but the US is responsible for a good amount of the immigrants coming this way due to a number of actions and policies which are much more recent than 250 years ago. Turns out backing rebel groups to try to create regime change and exporting massive numbers of convicted criminals to poor countries that dont have the means to deal with them are great ways to destabilize countries. Not to mention the cartels that destabilize Mexico get virtually all of their guns from us here in the US and they are able to do so easily because of our ridiculously loose laws. Oh and how about the fact that we dont go after people who employ illegal immigrants in this country? Illegal immigrants come for jobs, if there arent any available then they wont come. It's simple supply and demand.
There are even more policies we've pursued in Latin America that have also worked against us on immigration. This article covers this a bit https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com] .
Re: Kamala (Score:4)
However credible the reason, that still doesn't make it right to illegally enter the US, nor for the US to not protect the borders.
Sure, I can agree with you here a bit. My biggest issue is that none of what the party that is supposedly the die hard party against illegal immigration proposes will actually make much of a difference. Boarder wall? What a massive waste of money, Europe has essentially a giant moat with the Mediterranean and yet millions of illegal immigrants cross into Europe every year. What the heck kind of difference is a wall going to make when an entire major body of water cant stop this problem elsewhere? Meanwhile the Republicans are solidly against greater foreign aid to Latin American countries, are against common sense gun laws to make sure guns dont end up in the hands of bad people (like Mexican cartels who use them to destabilize their country), and most importantly you will *almost* never see a single significant Republican mention going after people who regularly and knowingly employ illegal immigrants.
I cant over emphasize how effective that last point would be, if there arent any jobs for illegals then why would most of them come here? As it is now they're virtually guaranteed employment if they can make it across the border. And honestly, who are the real bad guys here, the poor people who illegally cross our border to improve their lot in life or the American citizens with money who capitalize on their poverty and knowingly break US laws hiring them? My money is on the later.
So basically on the issue of illegal immigration I feel I'm faced with one party that doesnt do enough and another that only proposes non solutions that waste billions of dollars.
It's dangerous criminal gangs like MS-13 and the Sinaloa Cartel who are almost singly responsible for the epidemic of Fentanyl in the US (and the associated milllions of Fentanyl addicts and their frequent deaths). ..and before you label them as racist, be aware that 56% of border patrol agents are Hispanic.
ICE have arrested over 14,000 child sex traffikers already this year.
Illegal immigrants actually commit crimes at rates WELL below that of native born Americans https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/1... [pnas.org] , https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com] . This has been known for years now although has been recently backed up by more recent studies.
This latest conservative push to make this a big election year issue is mostly based on lies, half truths and distortions.
Re: (Score:3)
The study you cited fails to control for demographics such as age and sex in its conclusions. It doesn't address the question of whether an illegal immigrant is more or less prone to crime than a citizen of a similar demographic.
Oh, that's what you're trying to get at? I'm sorry, I thought I was missing something crucial.
Not to be rude but what you're telling me doesnt matter at all. The claim that is being pushed by conservatives (and the inspiration for this conversation) is that illegal immigrant crime is a major problem. The data disproves that, illegal immigrants engage in crime at much lower levels than native born Americans. Perhaps if the age and sex make up of illegal immigrants was different the crime statistics would be
Re: (Score:2)
Does it exist? Sure, but it's not like I encounter it in Tucson.
Re: (Score:3)
But business owners (Republicans) wouldn't go for that because they would have tons of jobs they can't fill and would have to pay people a living wage.
Re: (Score:3)
Not that I would vote for Trump either, but look at Trump's record compared to Harris's:
Trump: too much to list here so here's a link:
https://trumpwhitehouse.archiv... [archives.gov]
What has Harris actually achieved anything at all of note since January 18, 2021 (her time as VP ?) prety much nothing:
https://theweek.com/in-depth/1... [theweek.com]
Despite COVID, Trump managed to keep inflation below 2%. Just since Biden took over: Totally botched exit from Afghanistan, inflation is at 5.9%+, the cost of living has skyrocketed, the border
Re: (Score:2)
The comedic value that Trump has proven that criminal behaviour and a conviction isn't a barrier to your country's presidency should encourage you to update or abandon your delusional conspiracy.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
None of that seems to have anything to do with what kind of president she would be, or what her policies are. It's all just PR stuff, superficial.
If we are comparing, Harris may have "egged on" the BLM protests, but Trump egged on an armed insurrection against the United States. She may have seemed unprepared once or twice, but Trump can barely string a coherent sentence together. Kamala may be getting bad PR advice, but Trump is orange.
Everything the Republicans can throw at her, Trump is twice as bad.
And
Re: Kamala (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given what Trump was like last time he was in office, e.g. on women's rights and tax breaks for the ultra wealthy but not ordinary folk, and given she has been Biden's VP for his term, I think we can quite safely say she is the better choice.
We shall see who she picks as her VP, but when looking at who has influence you can't ignore Project 2025 either.
Re: Kamala (Score:3)
Re: Kamala (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is it's all hypotheticals. What scenario do you imagine where the US has a choice of responding with a full scale war or not?
I'd say the biggest concern at the moment would be getting involved in the Middle East as Israel expands its war. Trump has the US embassy moved in support of them. Harris is a lawyer, and the ICJ just ruled that the Israeli occupation is illegal and their laws constitute apartheid, but of course the pro-Israeli politicians and lobby (e.g. AIPAC) are very strong.
Maybe it comes down to who is more likely to so the strongman routine if say a US ship gets hit by the Houthis.
Re: Kamala (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's fair. I would hope that the recent ICJ ruling would make US policy makers think twice about all this. And the migration of people from Syria to Europe, after the US action there.
Re: Kamala (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
...except that in a 1994 agreement known as the Budapest Memorandum, the US GUARANTEED Ukraine's security in exchange for Ukraine giving up it's nuclear weapons, which they duly did.
Once the US got what it wanted, Trump now wants to just leave Ukraine to the sharks. Fuck Trump for intending to dishonorably welch on an international security deal between countries.
If Trump stops support for Ukraine, no other country will (or should) ever take any US security agreements seriously ever again.
I always thought t
Re: (Score:2)
If you're taking an "America First" approach to international relations, the question comes around to, "What's in it for America if Ukraine gives up the eastern half of the country?" There's three factors involved here. There's an attitude from a large population in the US of, "Why is this my problem?" This is the Trump position. There's the NATO attitude of, "russia has previously taking large swaths of countries to the east of us" even before WWII and then there's the russian attitude of, "Western Europe
Re: (Score:2)
I too get where Trump is coming from, and I agree with your points, but however sane they are and however you rationalize it, that doesn't mean the US can or should just welch on a deal.
Re: Kamala (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure and as the US is at least a part of the UN (and we all know that due to it's size and economic power, in reality the US's arms supplies and nuclear threat represent the major part), the US are both morally and legally bound to continue to support Ukraine per the agreement signed by president Bill Clinton.
Apart from anything else, not honoring presidential agreements would be the road to hell for the US.
Re: (Score:3)
The US doesn't do treaties that automatically trigger it to enter a war, because that is how WW1 started.
What? Are you unfamiliar with a little insignificant grouping of nations called the North Atlantic Treaty Organization?
You're correct about Ukraine but obviously you do such treaties when it serves us.
Re: Kamala (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I seriously hope she has the balls to do the honorable thing and continue to support Ukraine.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what you are talking about.
Biden didn't step down, he is still president.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously I have no idea what you are talking about. I can't even guess.
Re: Kamala (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
She doesn't lie as much
She should set up an independent/hands-off organisation that would fact-check Trump's speeches, something along the lines of BBC Verify [bbc.co.uk]. They should also verify Kamala's speeches; yes I expect that she will fail occasionally (it is very hard to not make mistakes when speaking off the cuff) but, hopefully, at a far lower rate than Trump.
Trump would find this difficult to complain about as by so doing he would be drawing attention to his lies. Some of his faithful followers will claim that the Verify organisa
Re: (Score:3)
There are lots of organizations that already do that. Trump supporters just say they have a liberal bias because they once said climate change exists and then disregard everything else regardless of how well researched or sourced it is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Kamala (Score:2)
"have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife questions"
You don't think those will be effective against a candidate who beat and raped one of his wives?
Re: Kamala (Score:2)
I think it comes off as obnoxious and suspect it is ineffective at persuading people who didn't like Biden on style or substance to like Harris on style or substance.
Re: Kamala (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to completely misunderstand the American political spectrum.
Re:Read the question carefully... (Score:4, Informative)
Exactly. Actual leftists in America are not huge fans of the democratic party, they're just who we're stuck with because there is no actual leftist party here. At the very most democrats are center left on social issues. On economic issues they're hardly leftist at all, they're just less right wing than absurd state the modern Republican party find itself in.