American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I don't really think any points anyone likes about Trump are going to be debated. There's nothing to debate at this stage. This isn't John McCain or even GW Bush. It’s Trump. Until he's gone, and unless he's somehow replaced by someone equally odious (hard to imagine who that could realistically be) there isn't anything to talk about.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Perfectly put.

Yeah, and on the other hand, team sports, y’know?

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't really think any points anyone likes about Trump are going to be debated. There's nothing to debate at this stage. This isn't John McCain or even GW Bush. It’s Trump. Until he's gone, and unless he's somehow replaced by someone equally odious (hard to imagine who that could realistically be) there isn't anything to talk about.

Theoretically people could talk about policy, pros and cons and what's important.

It's just that the conservatives especially but Americans more generally seem to have kind if abandoned any discussion of policy. Discussing the strengths and weaknessess of a plan is showing weakness or being boring.

Trump of course is the absolute worst here. His idea od policy talk is shouting random slogans like "I'm gonna build a wall and make Mexico pay for it" or "Inflation is so high but I'm going to fix it".

Does the wall work, has it been cost effective..? Nobody knows and nobody cares. Does his plan to fix inflation have any basis in reality? Again nobody knows and nobody cares.

There's only so much meaningful conversation to be had over how someone appears in an interview, or what age they are, or is someone weird or not. The most memorable part of the DNC was a well delivered dick joke.

The election discussion is basically all just picking apart smaller and smaller details of rhetorics, behavior and looks and talking vaguely about what kinds of people there are on either side.

I also think people are just increasing misinformed about what each party stands for at this point in time... or if they're not misinformed, then I'm very wrong.

It's not just that the Republicans have been taken over by extremists in basivally every topic from economic policy to social policy. Democrats have also quite noticeable moved to "the left". In fact both parties are showing clear signs of moving least away from the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama era of complete neo-liberalism dominance.

It used to really be the case that there was basically no difference in economic policy between the two parties, but increasingly there are... it's just really hard to keep track of or talk about in a meaningful way, because no one is interested in having a discussion where the point would be to understand where we are now. Any discussion is just immediately going to be about good people and bad people and who should and shouldn't be in power.

(For the record, this isn't exactly new, and this stuff comes and goes. I think there's a lot exhaustion in the air, I think people are getting really tired of anger politics and want some more peace and hope in their TV's.

I also think if Harris wins, Trump is likely gone from the party leadership, as he's just too old to be relevant in four years, and that another election loss would stir an internal reckoning within the Republicans, and they would likely move towards the center at that point, out of sheer electoral pressure.)

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Trump has demonstrated this isn't a difference of ideology. This isn't just catering to an interest group you may disagree with.

Trump wins, it's likely the end of American democracy as we know it.

Sure Harris might not be your favourite, but campaigning against her is the same as saying "I don't the support the other guy, but here's why Hans Vogel sucks and you shouldn't vote for him!"

The US is a two party system. If you're against Harris, you, by definition, support Trump. I don't make the rules, the rules suck and are stupid, but they are, in fact, the rules.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

That's the only Jimmy dore video I've ever watched I don't even know the guy.

Then maybe you should engage in some media literacy and try to understand the stupid #### you're posting before you post it and look like a fool? It is as obvious as the day is long that the clip is heavily edited with specific intent. You would have to be a fool to not recognize such tactics and immediately run in the other direction.

The Harris clips speak for themselves though. Not a leader.

No, they don't. They're doctored clips with an intent in making her look bad. Why didn't the whole clip get used instead of using the heavily edited sound bite? Because having the full video or passage would provide context and would have made the commentary completely understandable and provide the missing nuance. These videos are designed to work on the weak minded in our society and prey upon their ignorance. Don't fall for that crap.

If the thread was leaning drastically pro Trump, I would have done the same for the other side. Trump can be an ass hat

Ah, so you're just being a contrarian to manufacture some false balance? How about you just come out of that political closet you're hiding in and say what you are and who you support. It's not that hard and you may even find it is liberating.

[handgroen]

Can we have a thread title change please, we’re way past brunch or whatever the hell it was meant to mean so long ago

[Ped]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

Trump can be an ass hat

That's quite the statement that really says all there is to say about your point.

[ThisIsAnOutrage]

Kamala Harris is only a viable candidate because she is running against Trump. He is awful, so she looks like the better choice. Frankly, if she has to run against W. Bush, ir even Mitt "Binders full of women" Romney, she would lose in a landslide. Trump being awful doesn't mean that she is good. Pointing that out doesn't mean someone is biased.

[Ped]

Making a statment that "Trump can be an ass" is absolutely biased.

[Looch City]

Did FIU make a new account or something? He's been missing for some time now in this thread so it would make sense.

Must have at least 1 deplorable active in this thread at all times.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by ThisIsAnOutrage

Kamala Harris is only a viable candidate because she is running against Trump. He is awful, so she looks like the better choice. Frankly, if she has to run against W. Bush, ir even Mitt "Binders full of women" Romney, she would lose in a landslide. Trump being awful doesn't mean that she is good. Pointing that out doesn't mean someone is biased.

What does that actually accomplish?

Hey in this impossible hypothetical I think Harris would lose so I'm going to talk about why you shouldn't vote for her in this completely made up scenario, ignoring reality.

It accomplishes discrediting Harris and shifting the perspective of vote Harris or Trump, to vote Harris or not. Not voting Harris is essentially a vote for Trump.

You're stuck with Harris or Trump.

It's like saying how awful a candidate Hans Vogel was.

Live in reality, and talk about reality.

The whole "W. Bush or Rmoney would beat Harris" is nothing but propaganda to distract from Trump.

[ThisIsAnOutrage]

Originally Posted by Looch City

Did FIU make a new account or something? He's been missing for some time now in this thread so it would make sense.

Must have at least 1 deplorable active in this thread at all times.

I get the sarcasm here, but it kind of does. This thread doesn't accomplish much besides serving as an anxiety dump for people deathly afraid Trump will get reelected. Having one deplorable gives everyone a post or two to attack rather than just marinating in fear sweat all of the time.

[ThisIsAnOutrage]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

What does that actually accomplish?

Hey in this impossible hypothetical I think Harris would lose so I'm going to talk about why you shouldn't vote for her in this completely made up scenario, ignoring reality.

It accomplishes discrediting Harris and shifting the perspective of vote Harris or Trump, to vote Harris or not. Not voting Harris is essentially a vote for Trump.

You're stuck with Harris or Trump.

It's like saying how awful a candidate Hans Vogel was.

Live in reality, and talk about reality.

The whole "W. Bush or Rmoney would beat Harris" is nothing but propaganda to distract from Trump.

I will live in reality and talk about reality!

Trump is a bad candidate for president. Harris is also a bad candidate for president, for different reasons.

Did I do it?!

Teasing aside, who is Hans Vogel?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Why is Kamala a bad candidate? I’ve not seen a single thoughtful post on the subject. For someone who spends a lot of time talking about how terrible she is, you’ve said nothing of substance to outline why.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by ThisIsAnOutrage

I will live in reality and talk about reality!

Trump is a bad candidate for president. Harris is also a bad candidate for president, for different reasons.

Did I do it?!

Teasing aside, who is Hans Vogel?

Almost. Gotta pick one.

He lost the 1936 German election. The following "election" had one candidate.

[Cube Inmate]

Cancer is bad. Foot fungus is bad for different reasons. I mean, this clearly needs to be said or the "cancer derangement syndrome" will get out of hand.

There, am I doing it right?

[dino7c]

Harris will likely get the most votes in history
"bad candidate" lol

Who would be a good candidate?

[ThisIsAnOutrage]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Why is Kamala a bad candidate? I’ve not seen a single thoughtful post on the subject. For someone who spends a lot of time talking about how terrible she is, you’ve said nothing of substance to outline why.

If three posts is a lot of time, then, okay, a lot of time.

Obviously,.I can only speak for me on this one, plus I am not living in the US, so I wouldn't extrapolate from this to others

I want to know what I'm getting, from any candidate. Trump, right now is the devil we know. We also know that a lot of the old guard members of his previous administration are gone, fired or retired. There won't be as much to hold him back this time. His personal whims will dictate a lot of things. I can do the math when it comes to him, maybe a Dem. controlles house or senate can keep him in check until he hits his lame duck period. Heck, fractured republican party might even do that.

I don't know what I get with Harris. Former DA, Attourney General, low profile/sidelined as a VP. (contrast to Cheney, there was a VP who let you know what you were getting).

So, what does possibly 8 years of a Harris administration look like? That's what I'm waiting to find. That's why I don't like her mushy/evasive interview, why I think ahe is a bad candidate .

You know the saying, when someone tells you who they are believe them? There should.be another when, when someone won't tell you who they are, don't believe them.

I appreciate your relatively insult-free inquiry on the topic. It's rare in this thread.

[direwolf]

Bad candidate, lol. Harris and Walz have rallied the Democrat base in a way that I haven't seen since Obama. I have several friends and family scattered throughout different states and they tell me they haven't been this excited to vote in years.

[ThisIsAnOutrage]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Harris will likely get the most votes in history
"bad candidate" lol

Who would be a good candidate?

That's impossible, and you know it. Trump already got the most votes in history, ever. Very tremendous at.getting votes

Edit: A good candidate would.be someone who projects as a good president, not just a turd who can get the votes. We have seen how that goes, no?