What's new
By:

The Biden Administration and All Things Politics

fishonjazz said:
Good post. Mostly agree.
As much as I hate trump I don't even really hate on those who are reluctantly voting for him because he is the Republican candidate who won the primary and they just won't ever vote for the Democrat. I think these people are making a big mistake but at least they realize that trump sucks. (They just don't realize just how epically he sucks) They just think he sucks less than Kamala or Biden, etc. Hell, that is how the majority of Americans on both sides vote in most elections imo.

The ones who I do hate on are the ones going to the trump rallies and buying his merch and flying his flags and thinking he is the best president of all time or whatever.
Those people have something really wrong with them. They are the ones who would just shrug their shoulders if trump just started killing Americans he doesn't like. They are the ones he was calling his sheep when he said he can do whatever he wants and not lose his supporters. (Shoot someone on 5th avenue and not lose any supporters)

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Let's be honest... You talk about Trump faaar more than these people. You should look into a mirror.. I know these people you hate with a passion. Just because that are Christian. A true bigot... but thing is 99% of them are good people that hurt no one. They're not out shutting down colleges and insurrection buildings in the name of being antisemites.You openly supported that. Openly... It wasn't Trump supporters who rioted over 200 times causing massive damage and death. They rioted once... I don't see Truml supporters pushing extremely dangerous conspiracies about some propagated Project 25 you conspiracist push.

Crazy thing is you talk about Trump more than more than any Trumper literally ever has. It's not even close. You have spent 8 years talking about Trump mostly every...single...day. You are far worse than a person who simply puts a flag up. I mean I see all sorts of excitement, tee shorts and stuff for Kamala.. Should I be a piece of **** and hate those people like you do. Nah. We ain't nothing like you guys. We are far better.
 
You don’t have to love every single position Harris has just like the Israelites didn’t have to agree with everything King Cyrus said or did. King Cyrus however, was a useful tool just like Kamala Harris. If she can be elected to give us better health care, keep aid going to Ukraine, bring some ethical reform for judges, and most of all keep Dump out of the White House, I’ll be happy. I like seeing MAGA sad. When MAGA loses, America wins!
 
LogGrad98 said:
If I could break it down, I think that of the 43% currently favoring Trump (of course it fluctuates, I could just use 50%, but 43% is at least more accurate at the moment), I think it breaks down like this, where I am showing the percentage of that 43%, so 50% of that would be 21.5%, just to be clear:

So of the 43%....

  • 30% are hardcore maga cultists. These are the ones who go to every rally, buy all his ****, give the stupid answers to Jordan Klepper and others for their funny videos, that really do not represent the whole very well.
  • 50% are voting R. Straight up, on both sides of the aisle, about 1/3 to 1/2 of the electorate vote for the R or the D. They have no other recourse. They might buy some of his ****, go to a rally or 2, and are the ones who give more measured responses to the clickbait seeking youtube dudes.
  • 10-15% are the true swing voters, who decide that a republican is better for them than a democrat. Kind of voting for the R or D, but subtle difference in that they can be swayed.
  • 5%-10% are never-whatever demo you want to put Kamala in voters. They might be swayed by the addition of Walz, but these are the true bigots who do not necessarily agree with everything Trump says or does, recognizes he is mostly full of ****, but they will be DAMNED if they are going to allow a gay-loving black woman in the white house. Unfortunately I sincerely think this proportion as I have it here may be too small. And I know more than a few of these, I am finding out. Which in some cases really shocks me.
For the record I think the democrat side has its own break down, not as fragmented as the repub side due to the chaotic presence of Trump, but still just as predictable, with a larger proportion of them voting for the D. I see it as like 10% SJWs who believe no democrat can ever do anything wrong, 60-70% voting for the D, and as many as 20% or more being the swing voters who are broken into I voted for Trump before and my conscience won't let me this time, and never-Trumpers kind of evenly.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that well thought out analysis!
 
Aight, just so I'm clear, Vance is advocating for Voter Fraud?

abcnews.go.com

JD Vance says mass deportations should 'start with 1 million,' defends 'thought experiment' giving parents extra votes

GOP vice presidential candidate JD Vance spoke with ABC News' Jonathan Karl about a wide variety of topics including immigration and his views on childless Americans.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com

The senator has come under fire for repeated comments made about childless Americans, including one during an interview in July 2021 with then-Fox News host Tucker Carlson where Vance described leading Democrats including Harris as "childless cat ladies."

In a speech before a conservative group, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, which preceded that interview, Vance also suggested that people with children should have extra votes.


"The Democrats are talking about giving the vote to 16-year-olds, but let's do this instead," Vance said in the speech. "Let's give votes to all children in this country, but let's give control over those votes to the parents of those children. When you go to the polls in this country as a parent, you should have more power."

Vance told Karl his notion was a "thought experiment” in response to Democratic proposals to allow younger voters, and not a policy stance.
Click to expand...
 
It's interesting to think of where things would stand now if the delegates at the RNC would have chosen Nikki Hailey to be the nominee instead of trump.

My guess is that Biden would have remained in the race and been chosen as the nominee by the delegates at the DNC and would be way down in the polls vs Hailey right now and Hailey would cruise to a pretty easy victory and be president early next year with very little drama from either side.

Even if Biden dropped out in this scenario I bet Hailey would be up in the polls by a decent amount against Harris and win the election in November.

SMH Republicans.


Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
fishonjazz said:
It's interesting to think of where things would stand now if the delegates at the RNC would have chosen Nikki Hailey to be the nominee instead of trump.

My guess is that Biden would have remained in the race and been chosen as the nominee by the delegates at the DNC and would be way down in the polls vs Hailey right now and Hailey would cruise to a pretty easy victory and be president early next year with very little drama from either side.

Even if Biden dropped out in this scenario I bet Hailey would be up in the polls by a decent amount against Harris and win the election in November.

SMH Republicans.


Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Hailey did say the first side to ditch their octogenarian candidate would win.

I think she was right.
 
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-stokes-fears-unconstitutional-harris-160000703.html Trump doesn't understand the constitution or that delegates and superdelegates, rather than primary voters, choose presidential nominees.

Former President Trump is setting off alarms among critics as he pushes the claim that Vice President Harris’s ascent to become the Democratic nominee is somehow unconstitutional, with some warning he could be laying the groundwork to contest an electoral defeat as he did in 2020.

Trump has repeatedly sought to cast Harris replacing President Biden as the Democratic nominee as nefarious, likening it to a “coup” and in recent days claiming it may be unconstitutional because she was not atop the ballot in the primary process.

Biden and other Democrats, as well as some Republican Trump critics, have suggested the former president’s rhetoric is intended to cast doubt on November’s results should Harris prevail.

“We know one thing for sure. Trump never loses. And so if he’s not the winner of 2024 as in 2020, it must be because he was treated unfairly, yet again,” former Trump national security adviser John Bolton said on CNN.

“This is why people need to start thinking more now about how to deny Trump the ability the day after the election, if he loses, to try and throw the process into chaos again,” Bolton added.

Democratic delegates never formally backed Biden to be the party’s nominee in a roll call vote, and his name was not put on any ballots.

Trump’s rhetoric will be closely watched in light of what happened after he lost the 2020 election. Trump spent much of 2020 sowing doubt about the reliability of mail-in and absentee ballots, and he spent the weeks after Election Day claiming the result was fraudulent or rigged. He pursued numerous legal challenges, including up to the Supreme Court, but they were rejected for lack of evidence.
 

A majority of Republicans support President Joe Biden's new Supreme Court reform plan, according to a poll that was published on Friday.

After the Court handed down several controversial rulings and with some justices on the Court being accused of unethical behavior, the Biden administration unveiled a three-part reform plan on July 29 that would check the powers of the Court.

The reform plan would create a constitutional amendment ensuring former presidents are not immune from crimes committed while in office, establish a single 18-year term limit for justices who currently are allowed to serve on the Court until retirement or death and establish a binding, enforceable code of conduct that would require justices to disclose gifts, not publicly participate in political activity, and recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have a conflict of interest. (all of this makes 100% sense)

In a USA Today/Ipsos poll conducted from August 2 to 4, 70 percent of Republicans said they support establishing a binding code of conduct for the Court, 54 percent said they support enacting a constitutional amendment ensuring no person is above the law, including the president, and 51 percent support imposing term limits for justices.

An even larger majority of Democrats and independents also said they'd support Biden's reform plan. In total, 89 percent of Democrats and 75 percent of independents said they support a binding code of conduct while 89 percent of Democrats and 72 percent of independents said they support Biden's "No One Is Above the Law Amendment." Meanwhile, 83 percent of Democrats and 61 percent of independents said they support term limits for justices.
 
.Screenshot_2024-08-11-17-07-26-96_a23b203fd3aafc6dcb84e438dda678b6.jpg

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
A president proposing a popular policy idea? Something the majority of voters on both sides like? What a concept.
 
fishonjazz said:
.View attachment 17020

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
This is an interesting propagandistic spin. In reality this data means the opposite of what is being presented. The truth being revealed there is an admission the government is lying about the scale of the problem by omitting food from the calculation of core inflation.

As a side note, you do know Jacobin.com is set up for the purpose of advocating Marxist Socialism, right? Your screenshot is literal communist propaganda.

en.wikipedia.org

Jacobin (magazine) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Bucknutz said:
All the “book burning” bros here who promote that fake narrative, are you okay with this?


View: https://x.com/disclosetv/status/1823035468394754244?s=46&t=BMMZjW7vq0_zwnmLDjNTgQ


Threatening action to shut down speech. Speech that the government can subjectively classify the context to whatever they feel like. I think I just heard this recently coming from a VP candidate.

You guys are obviously against this “book burning” right?
Click to expand...

I have not weighed in on the book burning issue, but I will weigh in here. Here in the united states, where we have a clear and unimpeachable right to freedom of speech (minus of course inciting speech like yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc.), yes this would be viewed as offensive by some of the population, but still allowed. Given the context of this being governed in the laws of the EU then the EU standard would apply. I am not sure if this is in keeping with the EU laws, it sure feels like it is, but if it is then if they want to continue having access to the EU on Twitter/X then they probably need to comply, as the laws of the United States do not govern other nations. Seems fairly clear to me.

Now, do I agree with it? Not sure actually. I think they should be able to post and send what they want to, within the law, but I think there is also a moral responsibility beyond the legal terms defined in "the law" that operators of sites like this should be expected to uphold. I think the same for Facebook, et al. that they should all be willing to reduce the inflammatory content and reduced the targeting of children and young people in their addiction-generating algorithms, for example. But they have shown only a propensity to chase the almighty dollar regardless of who it harms or how much general harm it does in society. I think that is "more wrong" than what is being sought here in this letter.

Do I feel this is akin to book burning? No, not really. I mean I think an argument could be made, but to me this is not the same thing.
 
fishonjazz said:
.View attachment 17020

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Yeah this kind of thing is simply out of control and a huge part of it is the loosening, and lack of enforcement of monopoly and anti-trust laws in the last few decades, from both sides of the aisle unfortunately. A side effect of rampant lobbying in that they pay off both sides to get what they want. So we still give oil companies huge tax breaks and even subsidies to the oil companies. In 2022 it is estimated that american tax payers gave the oil companies over $20 billion in hand outs all while prices jumped at the pump and they recorded record income and record profits. None of that is by chance, it is a result of systematic bribery of our elected officials to change laws then "look the other way" on everything else.

I know this is a heavily left-leaning source, but it checks out to various middle of the road sources as well. It is just more succinct here.

usa.oceana.org

Oil & Gas Subsidies: Myth vs. Fact

MYTH: Eliminating subsidies to the oil and gas industry will raise gas prices. FACT: Variations in gas prices are driven by the world market, and are not dependent on U.S. government policies. This includes the existing subsidies for the oil and gas industry according to multiple studies that...
usa.oceana.org usa.oceana.org
 
LogGrad98 said:
I have not weighed in on the book burning issue, but I will weigh in here. Here in the united states, where we have a clear and unimpeachable right to freedom of speech (minus of course inciting speech like yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc.), yes this would be viewed as offensive by some of the population, but still allowed. Given the context of this being governed in the laws of the EU then the EU standard would apply. I am not sure if this is in keeping with the EU laws, it sure feels like it is, but if it is then if they want to continue having access to the EU on Twitter/X then they probably need to comply, as the laws of the United States do not govern other nations. Seems fairly clear to me.

Now, do I agree with it? Not sure actually. I think they should be able to post and send what they want to, within the law, but I think there is also a moral responsibility beyond the legal terms defined in "the law" that operators of sites like this should be expected to uphold. I think the same for Facebook, et al. that they should all be willing to reduce the inflammatory content and reduced the targeting of children and young people in their addiction-generating algorithms, for example. But they have shown only a propensity to chase the almighty dollar regardless of who it harms or how much general harm it does in society. I think that is "more wrong" than what is being sought here in this letter.

Do I feel this is akin to book burning? No, not really. I mean I think an argument could be made, but to me this is not the same thing.
Click to expand...
What was said? To force action, In this situation? It hasn’t even happened and there is a threat.

Edit: this is suppression of speech. Don’t like who’s speaking, threaten them.

Edit 2: attempted suppression

View: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1823076043017630114?s=46&t=BMMZjW7vq0_zwnmLDjNTgQ
 
Last edited:
Bucknutz said:
What was said? To force action, In this situation? It hasn’t even happened and there is a threat.

Edit: this is suppression of speech. Don’t like who’s speaking, threaten them.
Click to expand...
Sure. Then I recommend you say out of the EU for sure, since that seems to be the standard M.O. considering it was mentioned that other letters had been sent before that Twitter did not adhere to, so they were sending another one. That tells me this is a standard thing for them. So it could be presumed this is the way they operate in general. Not sure what recourse we have against the EU in general. Boycott maybe?

They mention the DSA and laws in the EU to which large online entities are responsible to adhere. Sounds like Twitter hasn't been adhering. I guess if that is the choice, and sure you could argue this is suppression of speech but it sure seems to be codified to me. In that case, pull out of the EU entirely and show them that way that you won't play by their rules. They can set the rules the member nations feels are important, and companies can choose where to do business. Twitter should just pull out of the EU entirely. That or sue I guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top