Sure, He's a 12 year old wrapped in an old fart's body.... but he's 10x better that what else is being "offered".
Biden? PLEASE. ...
If it comes down to Trump and Biden (or "Cackles", for that matter), Trump is going to clean house.
If it's Trump against anyone "sane and capable", he might not. "Sane and capable" does not include Gavin Newsom, but does include RFK, IMHO. Some may take issue.
It's probably the best opportunity for a 3rd party candidate or independent that we've seen in a long time.
[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 01-04-2024).]
I get how a Republican isn’t going to switch sides, don’t get me wrong. But for the life of me, I can’t fathom how anyone chooses that bumbling idiot over Biden if they’re even remotely moderate.
I get how a Republican isn’t going to switch sides, don’t get me wrong. But for the life of me, I can’t fathom how anyone chooses that bumbling idiot over Biden if they’re even remotely moderate.
It is about "culture" instead of "politics". Trumps supporters don't care that he has been proven to be a conman in court because they like the culture he stands fo instead of actual political policy.
--Women are sex objects.
--It is more important for a man to be "strong" than intelligent.
--Money is how you value a person, and if you have money you are allowed to be a complete ******* to anyone with less money.
--"Freedom of religion" only applies to the Christian religion.
--Since in general minorities are poorer than white people they are inferior races.
I've been out of the loop on Trump but how does he run for President and bypass a jail sentence?
I suppose that we shall see. Or not.
quote
Also HOW is he allowed to run?
Simple. He hasn't been convicted of anything that will disqualify him. In spite of what Colorado and Maine would like everyone to believe, we are all still innocent until proven guilty.
It is about "culture" instead of "politics". Trumps supporters don't care that he has been proven to be a conman in court because they like the culture he stands fo instead of actual political policy.
--Women are sex objects. (1)
--It is more important for a man to be "strong" than intelligent. (2)
--Money is how you value a person, and if you have money you are allowed to be a complete ******* to anyone with less money. (3)
--"Freedom of religion" only applies to the Christian religion. (4)
--Since in general minorities are poorer than white people they are inferior races. (5)
1. Women and kids would appear to be sex objects to Brandon. (Witness all the groping and hair sniffing, especially as it pertains to kids and women who are not in a position to do anything about it.)
2. Brandon can't even speak in complete sentences, or find his way from the plane to the limo. How many times has he threatened to take someone "out back" and "teach them a lesson". I guess if you don't have the brains, you resort to bullying. (Or talking out your ass, at least.)
3. Trump has only been an azzhole to people who have been azzholes to him, or others who would seem to richly deserve it.
4. Disagree completely. Cite some examples. (His mistrust of middle easterners doesn't count. That's who bombed the WTC and who state, repeatedly, that they wish "death to us all".) Trump may be Christian, but I don't think it's a big deal to him. The fact that the religious right has co-opted him is irrelevant. They did the same thing with the Tea Party.
5. Brandon's "Freudian slips" regarding minorities - especially black people - are the stuff of legends. You don't even want to go there.
*You might get the idea that I'm a "Trumper" from my comments. Quite the contrary. I hope somebody else wins the presidency. As I posted above, someone who is reasonably intelligent, and not a blatant leftist, probably has an excellent chance. God help us if it's Brandon. Brandon is an addle-brained moron. His domestic - as well as his foreign - policy, is a complete disaster. If he isn't, in fact, being "handled" by the Obamas.
[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 01-06-2024).]
The gift of free access to the great unwashed multitudes without an online subscription to the Washington Post... a middling length "read," replete with data plots.
"Labor market added 216,000 jobs in December, capping year of big gains"
quote
The unemployment rate held at 3.7 percent
EXCERPT
quote
The unemployment rate has now remained below 4 percent for 25 months, a stretch last accomplished in the 1960s. Average hourly wage growth accelerated slightly in December continuing to outpace inflation, boosting workers’ spending power, especially among the lowest earners.
Lauren Kaori Gurley for the Washington Post; January 5, 2024.
Some econometric cud to chew on, while contemplating Raydar's remark that "[Biden's] domestic—as well as his foreign policy—is a complete disaster."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-06-2024).]
Friends don't let friends adjudicate under the influence (of inadequate informaton.)
Donald Trump and/or his lawyers will be in court this week to explain why he should not be held criminally responsible in federal court for attempting to overturn the 2020 election.
George Conway joins MSNBC's Katie Phang to discuss why he and 15 other conservative Republicans have filed a "friends of the court" or amicus brief, to rebuke what they say are Trump's "outrageous" claims to presidential immunity.
"Average hourly wage growth accelerated slightly in December continuing to outpace inflation, boosting workers’ spending power, especially among the lowest earners."
About as much horseshit as I would expect from WAPO.
"Think of it, magnets," Trump said. "Now all I know about magnets is this, give me a glass of water, let me drop it on the magnets, that's the end of the magnets. Why didn't they use John Deere? Why didn't they bring in the John Deere people? Do you like John Deere? I like John Deere."
Just the latest from Dementia Don. Yeah, he’s clear as glass lmao.
I hardly ever venture (voluntarily) in the P&R section. In fact, I think this is the second time the past year. Also, this is the only thread I've read so far and probably will be my last as well. Just think of it as me getting lost on the way to the bathroom and accidentally ending up here. Or something like that. 😁
Aaaaaanyways...
As most non-US citizens, I think your whole "winner takes all" electoral system is flawed. Since this means all other parties other than the Democrats or Republicans will always have zero percent chance of becoming part of the government. Not 1%, not even 0.01%. But literally 0%. Here, we have a system that if your party gets 10% of the votes, 10% of the government will be representatives of this party. It's as democratic as can be. In the US, people are actually forced into voting either for the Democrats or Republicans. Because again, the winner takes all and it's a 100% certainty one of these two will win. So people don't actually vote "pro", they vote "anti". If a person doesn't want the democrats to win (in a certain state), they will vote republican. And not necessarily because they're actually a republican.
So you are stuck at choosing between Tweedledee and Tweedledum for your next president. Again, here in Europe we cannot believe your next president is going to be either Biden or Trump - because neither is really fit for office. Sure, I get that you think one is better than the other, but still - Tweedledee and Tweedledum.
Your electoral system is so far off being a democratic process, it's scary. There aren't many countries where someone can win the elections with less votes than his opponents. Or where the government is in no way a representation of what the people actually vote for. I mean, a third party could get 30% of the popular votes and still not have a single representative in the government. Like I said. Scary. And incredibly flawed.
I hardly ever venture (voluntarily) in the P&R section. In fact, I think this is the second time the past year. Also, this is the only thread I've read so far and probably will be my last as well. Just think of it as me getting lost on the way to the bathroom and accidentally ending up here. Or something like that. 😁
Aaaaaanyways...
As most non-US citizens, I think your whole "winner takes all" electoral system is flawed. Since this means all other parties other than the Democrats or Republicans will always have zero percent chance of becoming part of the government. Not 1%, not even 0.01%. But literally 0%. Here, we have a system that if your party gets 10% of the votes, 10% of the government will be representatives of this party. It's as democratic as can be. In the US, people are actually forced into voting either for the Democrats or Republicans. Because again, the winner takes all and it's a 100% certainty one of these two will win. So people don't actually vote "pro", they vote "anti". If a person doesn't want the democrats to win (in a certain state), they will vote republican. And not necessarily because they're actually a republican.
So you are stuck at choosing between Tweedledee and Tweedledum for your next president. Again, here in Europe we cannot believe your next president is going to be either Biden or Trump - because neither is really fit for office. Sure, I get that you think one is better than the other, but still - Tweedledee and Tweedledum.
Your electoral system is so far off being a democratic process, it's scary. There aren't many countries where someone can win the elections with less votes than his opponents. Or where the government is in no way a representation of what the people actually vote for. I mean, a third party could get 30% of the popular votes and still not have a single representative in the government. Like I said. Scary. And incredibly flawed.
Could not agree more. As evenly as this country is divided right now a third party (parties) that just controlled 5%-10% of the seats in congress could force compromise that would get the country running smoother.
As most non-US citizens, I think your whole "winner takes all" electoral system is flawed. Since this means all other parties other than the Democrats or Republicans will always have zero percent chance of becoming part of the government. Not 1%, not even 0.01%. But literally 0%. Here, we have a system that if your party gets 10% of the votes, 10% of the government will be representatives of this party. It's as democratic as can be. In the US, people are actually forced into voting either for the Democrats or Republicans. Because again, the winner takes all and it's a 100% certainty one of these two will win.
Thanks for popping in. Nice to see an "outsider's" opinion. Americans have a long history of "holding their noses" while they vote.
It's truly sad that these two doorstops are the best we can come up with. Because of situations like this, it always comes down to what each of us perceive as the lesser of the two evils. There truly needs to be a meaningful third party, at least. But of course the people in power don't want that, so it isn't likely to happen.
Hence my earlier comment. Someone sane, running as an independent, has a better chance now, than they have had in a very long time.
But everyone is afraid to vote for the independent, lest their "most feared evil" become the winner by default. So... Tweedledee or Tweedledum it will likely be.
[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 01-08-2024).]
I hardly ever venture (voluntarily) in the P&R section. In fact, I think this is the second time the past year. Also, this is the only thread I've read so far and probably will be my last as well. Just think of it as me getting lost on the way to the bathroom and accidentally ending up here. Or something like that. 😁
Aaaaaanyways...
As most non-US citizens, I think your whole "winner takes all" electoral system is flawed. Since this means all other parties other than the Democrats or Republicans will always have zero percent chance of becoming part of the government. Not 1%, not even 0.01%. But literally 0%. Here, we have a system that if your party gets 10% of the votes, 10% of the government will be representatives of this party. It's as democratic as can be. In the US, people are actually forced into voting either for the Democrats or Republicans. Because again, the winner takes all and it's a 100% certainty one of these two will win. So people don't actually vote "pro", they vote "anti". If a person doesn't want the democrats to win (in a certain state), they will vote republican. And not necessarily because they're actually a republican.
So you are stuck at choosing between Tweedledee and Tweedledum for your next president. Again, here in Europe we cannot believe your next president is going to be either Biden or Trump - because neither is really fit for office. Sure, I get that you think one is better than the other, but still - Tweedledee and Tweedledum.
Your electoral system is so far off being a democratic process, it's scary. There aren't many countries where someone can win the elections with less votes than his opponents. Or where the government is in no way a representation of what the people actually vote for. I mean, a third party could get 30% of the popular votes and still not have a single representative in the government. Like I said. Scary. And incredibly flawed.
I think it's important to understand that even though we use the word "democracy" all the time, our country is really more of a Republic. Not to diminish how the Dutch manage their government, but think of the United States more like the European Union. The states are more like the individual countries within the European Union. That said, we do still have a "winner takes all" for the individual governors, just as you do for your cities and provinces. But the structure was very intentionally designed because power was not meant to be shared by multiple parties. The way power is regulated in the United States is through the three branches of government... Executive (President), Legislative (House and Senate), and the Judicial (Supreme court and minor courts).
This is a very common misconception about how the United States is run, and I often find myself wondering why we don't elect a president in a similar way, but it's not like the European form of government didn't already exist in some capacity at the time of our founding... but the structure of our government is very intentional. I'd say the one thing our founders didn't consider is the power that the President does have. 99% of the government is under the control of the President. This idea that Federal agencies are independent and have no political impropriety is a huge misnomer that most in the United States don't understand. The President of the United States has direct authority to tell each agency to do exactly as he wishes. I'm not sure where people get the idea that in the United States these agencies are a-political... it started somewhere... or maybe it just grew out of narrative. But this is not enshrined anywhere and is so far from fact that it's become some what of a crazy idea that people have that's just so far from reality.
Anyway, Presidents have become weak, and fearful... no one wants to be the bad guy, so the executive branch (e.g., the government agencies and departments) look like a graveyard of former and failed presidential administrations. We create new organizations, but never eliminate them when they no longer serve a need. Congress creates them through law... and subsequently funds them, but they are under the SOLE authority of the President so long as actual Constitutional law is not violated.
That said, we do still have a "winner takes all" for the individual governors, just as you do for your cities and provinces.
Actually, even in provinces/municipalities, it's a representation of the parties the people have voted for. We don't have a "winner takes all" system anywhere.
Again, here in Europe we cannot believe your next president is going to be either Biden or Trump - because neither is really fit for office.
It's much the same belief here in Canada. And being located right next door to the United States, our economies are incestuously intertwined, so we have a lot to lose if the Americans screw up.
It's much the same belief here in Canada. And being located right next door to the United States, our economies are incestuously intertwined, so we have a lot to lose if the Americans screw up.
The whole world has a lot to lose when the United States "screws up," but they also have a lot to gain, which is why wealthy foreign organizations and individuals are always trying to manipulate it. You manipulate the United States, and you manipulate the entire world. But eventually people get tired of being manipulated, and the country will lose its power as people pull away from what makes the United States powerful... our economy.
For me personally, after contemplating it a lot... I much prefer the idea of a winner takes all. It provides longer consistency... at least for 4 years, which is what business needs to be successful. But at the same time, I think the President's power has grown significantly... and this needs to be curbed. There is no concept of "executive order" in the U.S. Constitution. It's a made up concept that derives from the quote in the Constitution "...to faithfully execute the law."
To a large degree, a huge amount of our representatives have been manipulated through lobbying, which since the Supreme Court ruling of Citizens United, has resulted in what I view to be an undesirable effect that allows corporations to directly sponsor candidates. They should be forced to wear shirts bearing the names of their sponsors, like in Idiocracy.
(His mistrust of middle easterners doesn't count. That's who bombed the WTC and who state, repeatedly, that they wish "death to us all".
Judging Muslims by Isis is like judging Trump supporters by the KKK. There are hundreds of thousands of Muslims living peacefully in the United States. There are thousands of them in the US military risking their lives to protect your freedom. There are thousands more across the country working as law enforcement officers, firemen, and first responders keeping you safe. None of these moderate Muslims wish "death to us all".
You are doing the exact same thing that liberals do when they point at the KKK as examples of Trump supports and Westboro Baptist Church members as examples of Christians.
Judging Muslims by Isis is like judging Trump supporters by the KKK. ...
Of course. I purposely didn't say "Muslims". But something has to be in place to vet some of the individuals who want to come here. Not all of the Muslims want to kill us, but virtually 100% of the people who want to see us killed are Muslim. (Well... at least before we started helping Ukraine. Now there's a few Russians and probably Chinese, I'm sure. But those are not for theological reasons.) But it's just like any other cross section of a population. The vast majority of just about any group of people are decent. Just want to live their lives and take care of their families. But it's the tiny minority who cause all the trouble, and make all the headlines. As distasteful is it seems to some people, on the face of it, those people need to be identified and stopped.
Right or wrong, stereotypes happen for a reason. So...
[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 01-08-2024).]
Originally posted by Raydar: Right or wrong, stereotypes happen for a reason, though. So...
So. . . what?
If a stereotype occurs for the wrong reason we need to oppose it, don't we?
Is it okay to call all Trump supporters racist because their is evidence that Trump encourages racism? He welcomed Confederate Battle Flags at he rallies. He welcomed the support of David Duke and the KKK. He supports avowed white supremacist Jayda Fransen. He said a judge could not be fair and impartial just because he was from Mexico. He tried to insult Obama by claiming he was Muslim. He asked for bans on Muslim immigration. That is an awful lot of evidence to support a stereotype. Does that make it okay and acceptable to label all trump supporters as racists?
I don't think so. As much as I dislike Trump I know that not all of his supporters are racists.
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 01-08-2024).]
If a stereotype occurs for the wrong reason we need to oppose it, don't we?
Is it okay to call all Trump supporters racist because their is evidence that Trump encourages racism? He welcomed Confederate Battle Flags at he rallies. He welcomed the support of David Duke and the KKK. He supports avowed white supremacist Jayda Fransen. He said a judge could not be fair and impartial just because he was from Mexico. He tried to insult Obama by claiming he was Muslim. He asked for bans on Muslim immigration. That is an awful lot of evidence to support a stereotype. Does that make it okay and acceptable to label all trump supporters as racists?
I don't think so. As much as I dislike Trump I know that not all of his supporters are racists.
Geeze... this is such a dishonest post. Clearly not meant to have any real conversation, but simply just spouting totally improper stuff to push a narrative while trying to pretend like you're dispelling a narrative.
Not exactly someone whom I'd be seeking out for advice.
