Most folks and all the Media/Networks believed the election would be an extremely close call for which ever candidate actually won. As I sit watching the returns, it's pretty obvious DJT will be the 47th President of the US. Why?
Personally, I believe a vast number of votes are not so much votes for DJT as they were against Harris.
Harris was unable to shake off the connection to President Biden and that is because the Biden/Harris Administration was such a failure in every facet that was important. From the economy, immigration, foreign policy, attempting to force Americans into EVs was not appreciated by the majority and more. My vote wasn't nearly as much a vote for DJT as it was a vote against Harris. She tried to lie her way into the White House about things she would do that went directly against everything she had done the last four years. The American voter simply didn't buy the fertilizer she was selling. In other words, most Americans simply didn't trust her.
Just my opinion but, that's what I believe.
Edited: Forgot to mention this. When Biden and Harris won, I believe that a lot of Conservative voters stayed home and didn't vote. There was a Pandemic going on then. They weren't enthused by either candidate but, based on the Biden/Harris Administration's performance over the last four years, those same voters came out in mass. Did DJT win or did Harris lose. While I have no idea who on the Dem side might have done better, I am very sure Harris lost. Things that didn't hurt her, her gender, her ethnicity but her past policies absolutely knocked her out of contention.
I'm expecting to hear and read claims of racism and sexism reasons from the losing side but, I can only say that Harris lost due to the policies she supported and the lies she tried to make us believe she was a moderate.
------------------ Rams Learning most of life's lessons the hard way. . You are only young once but, you can be immature indefinitely.
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 11-06-2024).]
Honestly, I can't believe we’re at a point where someone who’s famous for bending the truth, self-obsessed to a spectacular degree, and very likely to drag us all into WWIII can actually be elected president.
But, well… it’s not like there was a third option.
Honestly, I can't believe we’re at a point where someone who’s famous for bending the truth, self-obsessed to a spectacular degree, and very likely to drag us all into WWIII can actually be elected president.
But, well… it’s not like there was a third option.
Well, that's one perspective. As I have stated many times, I'm not a fan of DJT personally but, I do believe his policies were by far better for the USA and anything the Biden/Harris Administration offered or did. But, Harris could not escape her support of the WOKE/Progressive mission. What she offered up and promised during her campaign went almost opposite of what she supported her whole political career. I truly believe she lost more than DJT won.
It's impossible to predict the future but, I don't agree with your WWIII prediction. Peace through Strength has always worked and I see no reason it won't continue to work. Though, I do understand how some European nations will have concerns. IMHO, a strong unified NATO is the best way to continue peace.
------------------ Rams Learning most of life's lessons the hard way. . You are only young once but, you can be immature indefinitely.
Though, I do understand how some European nations will have concerns. IMHO, a strong unified NATO is the best way to continue peace.
Yes. A strong unified NATO is the best way to continue peace. However, with Trump back in the Oval Office, his past criticisms and skeptical stance on NATO could indicate a quiet but deliberate unraveling of the United States' role in the alliance. Throughout his previous term, Trump consistently criticized NATO allies for not meeting their financial obligations and suggested that the U.S. might not defend countries that don't "pay their fair share". Given his track record and stated views, he may attempt to broker bilateral agreements with Russia, asserting that direct deals with Putin are in America’s best interest, possibly even hinting at a more limited U.S. commitment to defending Europe.
Putin, long seeking to weaken NATO’s influence, would interpret Trump’s actions as a sign of weakness which validates his own approach. Historically, Putin has used calculated provocations, ranging from cyber-attacks to misinformation campaigns, as tools to gauge the West's response. Trump’s reluctance to openly criticize Putin or impose harsher penalties for Russian aggression has reinforced Putin's belief that these tactics work. With the U.S. stepping back, Putin might feel bold enough to test NATO further, starting with incursions into Baltic airspace or increased military presence near Eastern European borders.
Should Trump refrain from strong diplomatic or military responses to these provocations, it could signal to Russia that the U.S. no longer sees NATO's Article 5 commitment - that an attack on one member is an attack on all - as an automatic red line. Such a perception would dramatically shift the balance of power, leaving Eastern European NATO members especially vulnerable.
This lack of response could embolden Putin to launch a direct attack or annexation attempt on a NATO member, possibly in Eastern Europe, aiming to create chaos and test the alliance’s unity and reaction. Should Trump hesitate to respond, or worse, downplay the incursion as an "internal European matter", NATO’s collective defense could crumble, and Europe would face an unprecedented crisis. This kind of escalated conflict might inevitably drag the world into a large-scale conflict, with alliances fracturing and countries forced to choose sides, potentially igniting WW3.
A bunch of ifs, maybes and might happen in that posting. I guess we’ll have to wait and see. But this I am convinced of, under a Harris Administration the US would be a much weaker nation.
Honestly, I can't believe we’re at a point where someone who’s famous for bending the truth, self-obsessed to a spectacular degree, and very likely to drag us all into WWIII can actually be elected president.
But, well… it’s not like there was a third option.
Respectfully Cliff, that candidate lost. Trump won.
Yes. A strong unified NATO is the best way to continue peace. However, with Trump back in the Oval Office, his past criticisms and skeptical stance on NATO could indicate a quiet but deliberate unraveling of the United States' role in the alliance. Throughout his previous term, Trump consistently criticized NATO allies for not meeting their financial obligations and suggested that the U.S. might not defend countries that don't "pay their fair share". Given his track record and stated views, he may attempt to broker bilateral agreements with Russia, asserting that direct deals with Putin are in America’s best interest, possibly even hinting at a more limited U.S. commitment to defending Europe.
Putin, long seeking to weaken NATO’s influence, would interpret Trump’s actions as a sign of weakness which validates his own approach. Historically, Putin has used calculated provocations, ranging from cyber-attacks to misinformation campaigns, as tools to gauge the West's response. Trump’s reluctance to openly criticize Putin or impose harsher penalties for Russian aggression has reinforced Putin's belief that these tactics work. With the U.S. stepping back, Putin might feel bold enough to test NATO further, starting with incursions into Baltic airspace or increased military presence near Eastern European borders.
Should Trump refrain from strong diplomatic or military responses to these provocations, it could signal to Russia that the U.S. no longer sees NATO's Article 5 commitment - that an attack on one member is an attack on all - as an automatic red line. Such a perception would dramatically shift the balance of power, leaving Eastern European NATO members especially vulnerable.
This lack of response could embolden Putin to launch a direct attack or annexation attempt on a NATO member, possibly in Eastern Europe, aiming to create chaos and test the alliance’s unity and reaction. Should Trump hesitate to respond, or worse, downplay the incursion as an "internal European matter", NATO’s collective defense could crumble, and Europe would face an unprecedented crisis. This kind of escalated conflict might inevitably drag the world into a large-scale conflict, with alliances fracturing and countries forced to choose sides, potentially igniting WW3.
Putin would have to make his move while Biden is still in office for any of that to happen.
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: Throughout his previous term, Trump consistently criticized NATO allies for not meeting their financial obligations and suggested that the U.S. might not defend countries that don't "pay their fair share". Given his track record and stated views, he may attempt to broker bilateral agreements with Russia, asserting that direct deals with Putin are in America’s best interest, possibly even hinting at a more limited U.S. commitment to defending Europe.
The United States pays a vast majority of the UN's budget. The same with NATO because, all nations joining agreed to pay 2% of their GDP. How would you hold them to honor their promise ? Trump would never stop defending NATO members because America promised to defend all NATO members. Germany, a very profitable Nation will not pay theirs. Their invasions in WW II was the genesis of NATO.
Russia invaded the Ukrainian Crimea during the Obama administration, and went into Ukraine during Biden's administration. Both Democrat party administrations.
quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: Historically, Putin has used calculated provocations, ranging from cyber-attacks to misinformation campaigns, as tools to gauge the West's response.
As do many Nations. It is not just to gauge America's response. Democracy is communism and socialism's worst enemies in regards to the best government style to live in.
quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: Trump’s reluctance to openly criticize Putin or impose harsher penalties for Russian aggression has reinforced Putin's belief that these tactics work. With the U.S. stepping back, Putin might feel bold enough to test NATO further, starting with incursions into Baltic airspace or increased military presence near Eastern European borders.
Trump halted Russia's oil/gas pipeline to Europe. Biden allowed it. Biden cancelled our Keystone pipeline. Trump heavily sanctioned Russia's oil and gas industry. Biden removed them. Putin would employ those tactics whether they worked or not. Just as scammers only get a small amount of people targeted yet they are profitable.
quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: Should Trump refrain from strong diplomatic or military responses to these provocations, it could signal to Russia that the U.S. no longer sees NATO's Article 5 commitment - that an attack on one member is an attack on all - as an automatic red line. Such a perception would dramatically shift the balance of power, leaving Eastern European NATO members especially vulnerable.
Gee. Then those Nations will be spending more on their defenses. Why not just pay your promised % of GDP ?
quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: This lack of response could embolden Putin to launch a direct attack or annexation attempt on a NATO member, possibly in Eastern Europe, aiming to create chaos and test the alliance’s unity and reaction. Should Trump hesitate to respond, or worse, downplay the incursion as an "internal European matter", NATO’s collective defense could crumble, and Europe would face an unprecedented crisis. This kind of escalated conflict might inevitably drag the world into a large-scale conflict, with alliances fracturing and countries forced to choose sides, potentially igniting WW3.
The US has not been involved in the onset of a World War to this point, and it is not directly involved in any conflict that is angling that direction now. The world has Putin still invading foreign countries, insanity in the middle East, rogue nations like North Korea, Chinese expansionism...it's wild to think it will be the US that drags us in. At worst Trump represents a destabilization of the security infrastructure the US has historically provided, and a clear wakeup call for Europeans that they need to stop relying on the US as their protector/hegemon. All that "the world is gonna end" talk is Chicken Little nonsense.
As for why Harris lost, I think it misses the point to say she was too progressive/woke. I lived in CA where Kamala Harris pushed hard against non-violent drug crimes, backed the police in clear abuse cases, prosecuted victims, and defended abusive prison labor practices. Harris never addressed any of that, continuing the practice Biden started of taking the "woke" vote for granted, and she lost her base because of it. The Democrats are obsessed with Trump, and even after 8 years can't seem to wrap their heads around the point that smugly pointing out they aren't Trump and acting arrogant about his base is a losing strategy.
It's gonna be an interesting 4 years. At least we won't have to deal with shear amount of whining and childish "NUH UH"ing that happened after Trump lost.
The US has not been involved in the onset of a World War to this point, and it is not directly involved in any conflict that is angling that direction now. The world has Putin still invading foreign countries, insanity in the middle East, rogue nations like North Korea, Chinese expansionism...it's wild to think it will be the US that drags us in. At worst Trump represents a destabilization of the security infrastructure the US has historically provided, and a clear wakeup call for Europeans that they need to stop relying on the US as their protector/hegemon. All that "the world is gonna end" talk is Chicken Little nonsense.
As for why Harris lost, I think it misses the point to say she was too progressive/woke. I lived in CA where Kamala Harris pushed hard against non-violent drug crimes, backed the police in clear abuse cases, prosecuted victims, and defended abusive prison labor practices. Harris never addressed any of that, continuing the practice Biden started of taking the "woke" vote for granted, and she lost her base because of it. The Democrats are obsessed with Trump, and even after 8 years can't seem to wrap their heads around the point that smugly pointing out they aren't Trump and acting arrogant about his base is a losing strategy.
It's gonna be an interesting 4 years. At least we won't have to deal with shear amount of whining and childish "NUH UH"ing that happened after Trump lost.
Pointing to how California sees/saw Harris makes about as much sense as pointing to how Texas sees her. Last I heard, Harris handily carried California yesterday.
Harris lost because she failed to distance herself from Biden's disastrous policies (The View can take credit for that) and because she focused greatly on "Orange man bad!" rhetoric. That 2nd part may have convinced the RayBs of the world but no one else.
I know alotof people that voted for trump and not one did so because Trump's opponent was female, or because his opponent was black, but that's the hill the left is going to choose to die on because they simply can't see past their own faults.
Pointing to how California sees/saw Harris makes about as much sense as pointing to how Texas sees her. Last I heard, Harris handily carried California yesterday.
Harris lost because she failed to distance herself from Biden's disastrous policies (The View can take credit for that) and because she focused greatly on "Orange man bad!" rhetoric. That 2nd part may have convinced the RayBs of the world but no one else.
I know alotof people that voted for trump and not one did so because Trump's opponent was female, or because his opponent was black, but that's the hill the left is going to choose to die on because they simply can't see past their own faults.
Whole heartedly agree. I fully expect the racism and gender slams to begin any time and yet, of all the folks I've spoken to about this election, not one gave a damn about her color or her gender. Her policies and that of Biden's is what sunk her, no one on the winning side believe a word she said due to her history.
I’m was sitting at the HEB pharmacy waiting on my turn and there’s a lady sitting next to me. I tell her I’ll just wait while the line goes down and I also asked her if she thought all those people were getting blood pressure medicine for 10pm tonight??? She replies No they’ll all be at the liquor store later!!! LMAO!!!
Pointing to how California sees/saw Harris makes about as much sense as pointing to how Texas sees her. Last I heard, Harris handily carried California yesterday.
Harris lost because she failed to distance herself from Biden's disastrous policies (The View can take credit for that) and because she focused greatly on "Orange man bad!" rhetoric. That 2nd part may have convinced the RayBs of the world but no one else.
I know alotof people that voted for trump and not one did so because Trump's opponent was female, or because his opponent was black, but that's the hill the left is going to choose to die on because they simply can't see past their own faults.
I'm not commenting how Californians feel about Harris, but rather how well she mobilizes Democrats nationally. CA is a given, but turnout there was weak, as was Democrat turnout across the board. These are folks who vote progressive anyway; they aren't being turned off by "wokeness" and they aren't going to share your assessment of Biden's policies as failures. She gave those people nothing tangible to show up for.
I agree that they made the same mistake again of thinking "Orange man bad!" was a good enough argument against Trump, but by my estimation that's where she lost independents.
All that being said, it was a massively bad year for incumbents across states and internationally, and I think that's hard to overlook as well.
I'm not suggesting voting for Trump is racist, or that a significant portion of his base is motivated by express racism/sexism/bigotry, and I don't think that's how the majority of Democrats are responding. A lot of what's coming out of "the Left" right now appears to be self-reflective...a "how could we have let this happen?" more than a "the world's turned racist!" While I share a lot of folks' surprise that someone can openly have the character/history/moral makeup Trump has and still be a viable candidate for President, I don't think that surprise is valuable or salient to the conversation, and I don't think it really has anything to do with why people vote for him.
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 11-06-2024).]
I've been considering this since last night, when it was pretty clear what the result was going to be. My take so far is that Harris lost for two primary reasons:
1) Voters were apathetic to Harris due to not getting to know her through a typical primary season. She then decided to use the short amount of time she had to not rock the boat - she wanted to keep her Democratic coalition while gaining moderates and middling Republicans by not being specific on policy. I think apathy came with a lack of a clearly defined alternative to Trump. If she had either gone through a typical primary or had she been more specific in answering questions in her few very public media interviews, I think she could have avoided the bleeding of her base and likely won.
2) Democrats have been using "men" as a catch-all enemy for the past few election cycles (possibly decades though my memory is a bit fuzzy on how long it has been happening). They've pushed men away and blamed them for just about everything under the sun. As men were disenfranchised from the Democratic Party, they were re-enfranchised to the Right through alternative social channels and podcasts (Democrats even make fun of these, calling them "dude bro pods"). While Republicans energized new voters in new channels, Democrats used those same channels to... continue pushing men away. I think this is a huge contributor, though I don't really see many people talking about it.
I'm not commenting how Californians feel about Harris, but rather how well she mobilizes Democrats nationally. CA is a given, but turnout there was weak, as was Democrat turnout across the board. These are folks who vote progressive anyway; they aren't being turned off by "wokeness" and they aren't going to share your assessment of Biden's policies as failures. She gave those people nothing tangible to show up for.
I agree that they made the same mistake again of thinking "Orange man bad!" was a good enough argument against Trump, but by my estimation that's where she lost independents.
All that being said, it was a massively bad year for incumbents across states and internationally, and I think that's hard to overlook as well.
While in the Marine Corps, I was station in CA and had a really hard time understanding the culture there. Of course, that was Viet Nam and post Viet Nam so, that may explain some of it but still contend that much of California is inhabited by a cult thought process. One that believes you can have your cake and eat it to. Unfortunately, many Californians are moving out to places like Utah, Colorado, Texas and Arizona and bringing their political values with them. I've got a tee shirt that says Don't California My Mississippi. Looking for one that says the same thing except the state being Tennessee.
Reference incumbents, I don't have the actual numbers but, I'm thinking Democrat incumbents felt the sting more than Republicans. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Conspiracy theorists are saying the Dems wanted the loss so that they can concentrate on Shapiro (Pennsylvania), saying they didn't want to use him on a losing campaign, hence they picked Walzt. Again this is a theory.
I've been considering this since last night, when it was pretty clear what the result was going to be. My take so far is that Harris lost for two primary reasons:
1) Voters were apathetic to Harris due to not getting to know her through a typical primary season. She then decided to use the short amount of time she had to not rock the boat - she wanted to keep her Democratic coalition while gaining moderates and middling Republicans by not being specific on policy. I think apathy came with a lack of a clearly defined alternative to Trump. If she had either gone through a typical primary or had she been more specific in answering questions in her few very public media interviews, I think she could have avoided the bleeding of her base and likely won.
2) Democrats have been using "men" as a catch-all enemy for the past few election cycles (possibly decades though my memory is a bit fuzzy on how long it has been happening). They've pushed men away and blamed them for just about everything under the sun. As men were disenfranchised from the Democratic Party, they were re-enfranchised to the Right through alternative social channels and podcasts (Democrats even make fun of these, calling them "dude bro pods"). While Republicans energized new voters in new channels, Democrats used those same channels to... continue pushing men away. I think this is a huge contributor, though I don't really see many people talking about it.
I'm sure there are many reasons Harris didn't win but, as I see it, her failure to break ranks with an unpopular President and specifically say what she would do differently cost her a lot of votes. Her professional political career history was almost directly opposed to what she was campaigning on. This led to a great amount of distrust, Senator Sanders (someone who I rarely agree with) stated it bluntly and correctly a while back when he said, she's saying what she needs to say to get elected (or something close to that). It's pretty clear, she did not gain the trust of the majority of voting citizens. The lack of a primary may have had something to do with it but, when hand picked by the Dem leadership, those true to the faith will follow.
While in the Marine Corps, I was station in CA and had a really hard time understanding the culture there. Of course, that was Viet Nam and post Viet Nam so, that may explain some of it but still contend that much of California is inhabited by a cult thought process. One that believes you can have your cake and eat it to. Unfortunately, many Californians are moving out to places like Utah, Colorado, Texas and Arizona and bringing their political values with them. I've got a tee shirt that says Don't California My Mississippi. Looking for one that says the same thing except the state being Tennessee.
Reference incumbents, I don't have the actual numbers but, I'm thinking Democrat incumbents felt the sting more than Republicans. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Rams
I think a lot of that depends where you're at in CA. I lived mostly in the Central Valley, and that's all very conservative farming communities. Like the rest of the country, I think it's more of a city/rural thing. We were targeted with a lot of completely tone deaf, let-them-eat-cake type policies dictated from the much more populated regions of the state, and I absolutely get that living-in-a-cult take from San Francisco politics.
"Don't California my Mississippi" seems a like something one of the "Thank God for Mississippi" states would say. Having moved from CA to NV several years ago for non-political/financial reasons, I can say there are considerably worse ways to run a state than what CA gets up to. Then again, I'm something of a voting conscientious objector, so it's not like I bring the CA with me anyway.
Honestly, I can't believe we’re at a point where someone who’s famous for bending the truth, self-obsessed to a spectacular degree, and very likely to drag us all into WWIII can actually be elected president.
I feel your description of Trump's traits are if anything, way too moderate.
In regards to him dragging us all into WWIII, I don't believe he'd be the one directly leading the charge. It might more so be his inactions on that front that would eventually contribute to a major war developing. And why would he go that route? It would be an incredible boom (pardon the pun) to the American economy, with arms sales to all the involved countries.
There's a method to Trump's madness... and it's all about power, and making money... for himself. It seems unfathomable that the American people (who voted for him) can't comprehend this... but perhaps like fish in the sea, they're totally oblivious of being immersed in water... or in this case, immersed in a deception.
The echo chamber here will just laugh this off. Fine, they're feeling pretty good about themselves today... but I hope we all still have something to laugh about four years from now.
"Don't California my Mississippi" seems a like something one of the "Thank God for Mississippi" states would say. Having moved from CA to NV several years ago for non-political/financial reasons, I can say there are considerably worse ways to run a state than what CA gets up to. Then again, I'm something of a voting conscientious objector, so it's not like I bring the CA with me anyway.
In that I don't know you personally, I'll accept your description of yourself. But, look at how Colorado and several other states have changed since the Great Migration of Californians to other states began. It sure looks like they are bringing their politics with them.
Originally posted by blackrams: I'm sure there are many reasons Harris didn't win but, as I see it, her failure to break ranks with an unpopular President and specifically say what she would do differently cost her a lot of votes. Her professional political career history was almost directly opposed to what she was campaigning on. This led to a great amount of distrust, Senator Sanders (someone who I rarely agree with) stated it bluntly and correctly a while back when he said, she's saying what she needs to say to get elected (or something close to that). It's pretty clear, she did not gain the trust of the majority of voting citizens. The lack of a primary may have had something to do with it but, when hand picked by the Dem leadership, those true to the faith will follow.
This is a solid take, though I don't think the Democratic line-toers are necessarily going to show up for a lackluster candidate. I still think they'd have been better off running running that space-faring thumb.
This is a solid take, though I don't think the Democratic line-toers are necessarily going to show up for a lackluster candidate. I still think they'd have been better off running running that space-faring thumb.
I tend to agree, he would have been a more believable candidate. Just my opinion.
...the Great Migration of Californians to other states began. It sure looks like they are bringing their politics with them.
I thought the "migration" from California was due to right wing Californians being fed up with the left wing policies of elected California politicians. So... what exactly are you suggesting?
In that I don't know you personally, I'll accept your description of yourself. But, look at how Colorado and several other states have changed since the Great Migration of Californians to other states began. It sure looks like they are bringing their politics with them.
Rams
Other than that I abstain from voting I'm not sure what other description you'd need to trust, and that would be an extremely strange thing for me to lie about in this context.
I thought the "migration" from California was due to right wing Californians being fed up with the left wing policies of elected California politicians. So... what exactly are you suggesting?
What I stated is pretty plain, no apologies if you can't see what's happened in Colorado and other states.
There are most likely many reasons Californians are living CA. Not being there, I don't have first person information but, there is no doubt they are bringing their politics with them. How you got the ideas you have, I can't answer for. Might be Trudeau syndrome for all I know.
What I stated is pretty plain, no apologies if you can't see what's happened in Colorado and other states.
There are most likely many reasons Californians are living CA. Not being there, I don't have first person information but, there is no doubt they are bringing their politics with them. How you got the ideas you have, I can't answer for. Might be Trudeau syndrome for all I know.
And no surprise, you haven't responded to my previous post in a rational manner and stated what you think "their politics" are. Left or right? What is it? What side of the political fence are Californians who are migrating to "Utah, Colorado, Texas and Arizona"?
My take? Very simply Kamala didn't have a platform. Nada. She expressed a few opinions (pro/anti fracking, etc.) but those seemed to change with however the wind was blowing. One campaign ad suggested that "she wouldn't change a thing", that Biden was doing.
She had no plan. I think she thought that she could "wing it". At best it was going to be Brandon V2.0. At worst, I don't even want to think about it.
I'm not really a Trump fan, either, but I think that he was a far better choice than Kamala. The positive aspect of this is that he can't run again. He's done. Kamala can run again, but she doesn't have a hope in hell. BOTH sides are going to have to pony up someone worthy of the vote. They've got four years...
Originally posted by blackrams: ... There are most likely many reasons Californians are living CA. Not being there, I don't have first person information but, there is no doubt they are bringing their politics with them.
Go ahead and ask Toddster and Fierobear how they voted. I think we don't even need to.
While we're bagging on you, I bet you wish you got to keep your good hockey players too
We've got enough to go around. Plus, these players get to help spread Canadian ideals to other countries far and wide. It's all part of a covert plan for Canadian world domination... damn, I've said too much!
I'm not really a Trump fan, either, but I think that he was a far better choice than Kamala. The positive aspect of this is that he can't run again. He's done. Kamala can run again, but she doesn't have a hope in hell. BOTH sides are going to have to pony up someone worthy of the vote. They've got four years...
Which probably means, VP Elect Vance will try to succeed President Elect Trump. Based on what I've read, seen and heard, that's going to be special.
On another note, we seem to be lacking a anti-Trump member contributing to this discussion. Hmmm, I wonder why.....................
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 11-06-2024).]
I feel your description of Trump's traits are if anything, way too moderate.
In regards to him dragging us all into WWIII, I don't believe he'd be the one directly leading the charge. It might more so be his inactions on that front that would eventually contribute to a major war developing. And why would he go that route? It would be an incredible boom (pardon the pun) to the American economy, with arms sales to all the involved countries.
There's a method to Trump's madness... and it's all about power, and making money... for himself. It seems unfathomable that the American people (who voted for him) can't comprehend this... but perhaps like fish in the sea, they're totally oblivious of being immersed in water... or in this case, immersed in a deception.
The echo chamber here will just laugh this off. Fine, they're feeling pretty good about themselves today... but I hope we all still have something to laugh about four years from now.
You "other countries' are perfectly capable of keeping yourselves out of war all on your own. I'm sure you can find yourself a 21st Century Neville Chamberlain somewhere within.
And no surprise, you haven't responded to my previous post in a rational manner and stated what you think "their politics" are. Left or right? What is it? What side of the political fence are Californians who are migrating to "Utah, Colorado, Texas and Arizona"?
Patrick, I feel no need to do any research for you. Already stated that I have no "first person knowledge", only that they are bringing their politics with them. Do your own research if you're that interested.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 11-06-2024).]
