2024 US Presidential Election

First topic message reminder :

Thought we should have a thread on it, as Ron DeSantis is expected to launch his campaign on Twitter this evening. He's trailing Trump by a big margin for the Republican nomination, around 37% behind in the polling average. But there's a lot of time for things to change and the oddsmakers only have DeSantis as a 2/1 outsider, against Trump's 2/5. Doesn't appear to be any other serious contenders for the Republican nomination at this point.

Biden is expected to run again and defend his crown, but his advancing age (he's into his 80s now) and low approval ratings means he may be vulnerable to a Democratic challenger. The most likely challenger seems to be Robert Kennedy Jr. who has already announced his candidacy and has polled as high as 21%, but that was still 49% behind Biden. As such, Biden's a 2/9 clear favourite to be the Democrat nominee in 2024, but if he drops out for whatever reason then the race is wide open.

Only 531 days until the election...

No name Bertie wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:America is more democratic than the British system given the number of candidates that can run for President including non-politicians .....

How exactly does that make the US more democratic?

mountain man wrote:Fair play, that's a cracker. ....

Duty281 wrote: And what chance do any of them have unless they're loaded and in one of the two big parties?

I suspect a level of cynicism perhaps originating from the authoritarian mind that believes the people should not get to choose because they choose the "wrong" person.  With regard the two big parties the people effectively get to choose who gets nominated in the primaries.

Yet again unable to answer a simple question. Pseudointellectualism at its finest.

I expected a certain level of intelligence from you.  Bits in red.   I thought you knew  that in Britain we don't choose the prime-minister - the parties do.   The party leader of the party with the most seats forms the government.  In the USA the people directly appoint the President through a primary and secondary election process with non party independents also able to run for president.

That equates to more democracy how?

I read that a Republican called Ogles has introduced impeachment articles against Biden. I am sure that this is not politically motivated in any way, because I have been reliably informed that is not how the Republicans operate.

William Andrew Ogles IV. Will Ogles. Bill Ogles. Andy Ogles. They all ogle. Four times.

Americans have some very amusing names.

Duty281 wrote:William Andrew Ogles IV. Will Ogles. Bill Ogles. Andy Ogles. They all ogle. Four times.

Americans have some very amusing names.

I wonder if he Ogles de Kock?

Soul Requiem wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:America is more democratic than the British system given the number of candidates that can run for President including non-politicians .....

How exactly does that make the US more democratic?

mountain man wrote:Fair play, that's a cracker. ....

Duty281 wrote: And what chance do any of them have unless they're loaded and in one of the two big parties?

I suspect a level of cynicism perhaps originating from the authoritarian mind that believes the people should not get to choose because they choose the "wrong" person.  With regard the two big parties the people effectively get to choose who gets nominated in the primaries.

Yet again unable to answer a simple question. Pseudointellectualism at its finest.

I expected a certain level of intelligence from you.  Bits in red.   I thought you knew  that in Britain we don't choose the prime-minister - the parties do.   The party leader of the party with the most seats forms the government.  In the USA the people directly appoint the President through a primary and secondary election process with non party independents also able to run for president.

That equates to more democracy how?

You have already taken an abusive response - bit in bold. And I consider your further response additional abuse by taking an obtuse position.

Abuse? Really?

No name Bertie wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:America is more democratic than the British system given the number of candidates that can run for President including non-politicians .....

How exactly does that make the US more democratic?

mountain man wrote:Fair play, that's a cracker. ....

Duty281 wrote: And what chance do any of them have unless they're loaded and in one of the two big parties?

I suspect a level of cynicism perhaps originating from the authoritarian mind that believes the people should not get to choose because they choose the "wrong" person.  With regard the two big parties the people effectively get to choose who gets nominated in the primaries.

Yet again unable to answer a simple question. Pseudointellectualism at its finest.

I expected a certain level of intelligence from you.  Bits in red.   I thought you knew  that in Britain we don't choose the prime-minister - the parties do.   The party leader of the party with the most seats forms the government.  In the USA the people directly appoint the President through a primary and secondary election process with non party independents also able to run for president.

I thought the Electoral College voted for the President.

No name Bertie wrote:
You have already taken an abusive response - bit in bold.   And I consider your further response additional abuse by taking an obtuse position.

It's ok Bertie, I'm aware you can't actually back up your statement.

I don't think obtuse means what you think it does.

mountain man wrote:Well indirectly we do which is why no one would vote labour whilst Corbyn was leader as nobody outside of Momentum could see him as PM.

Corbyn got nearly 13 million votes and 40% in 2017.....Momentum must have a lot of members...

My constituency is Lab v Lib.......Being in a decent part of it (Nothing to do with me sadly) We get mainly Liberal canvassers...in fact it was a strong Lib Dem ward until 2012.....Our vote usually taken for granted to keep out the Socialist rabble....

But I voted for Corbyn in 2017......bit left for me but I wouldn't vote for a party that cr**ped on Students and sold out to the Tories.....I also felt sorry for Corbyn bevause I thought though he was naive I thought he meant well....Still do.

My Partner is a Tory.....But she didn't vote for May because she didn't trust a remainer with Brexit......Her and Daddy are flag wavers....

Red stayed home...No UKIP candidate as I recall...

I see the naughty Democrats have cancelled the Primary debates.....They are a little afraid of Kennedy and they know Biden is so far gone he might end up peeing on the stage while he struggles to get his words out..."What a World, Stella..What a World !!"

Anyay it isn't a popular decision..

USA Today poll...Do you believe the Democrats should have debates ???

Yes 80%
No..16%

The Democrats haven't cancelled the primary debates because there were never scheduled to be any. It's a normal state of affairs for the incumbent President to not participate in primary debates. Trump didn't, Obama didn't etc.

Should there be? Probably. But the Democrats won't want Biden to be torched by friendly fire ahead of the real battle.

I look forward to Truss repeating the claim that the naughty Democrats have cancelled the Primary debates.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I look forward to Truss repeating the claim that the naughty Democrats have cancelled the Primary debates.

a claim that will be backed up by Lescargo.

Samo wrote:I thought the Electoral College voted for the President.

And you wouldn't be wrong.  When they vote against the peoples vote from their state then we would hear about it.

Duty281 wrote:The Democrats haven't cancelled the primary debates because there were never scheduled to be any. It's a normal state of affairs for the incumbent President to not participate in primary debates. Trump didn't, Obama didn't etc.

Should there be? Probably. But the Democrats won't want Biden to be torched by friendly fire ahead of the real battle.

Generally accepted that when a challenger gets to a threshold of support you debate....Reagan was given a platform by his party against Ford in 76........

Unlike Obama and Clinton.......Biden has a third of his party that wants him out..Obama and Clinton polled in the high 80s..

Lescargo agrees with this post.....Says it is nice to see Super again after all these years...

No name Bertie wrote:

Samo wrote:I thought the Electoral College voted for the President.

And you wouldn't be wrong.  When they vote against the peoples vote from their state then we would hear about it.

These delegates are called "Faithless Electors"......Most States have Faithless Elector laws forbidding them to vote against the People.

They get replaced..

No name Bertie wrote:

Samo wrote:I thought the Electoral College voted for the President.

And you wouldn't be wrong.  When they vote against the peoples vote from their state then we would hear about it.

So the people dont directly vote for a President.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I see the naughty Democrats have cancelled the Primary debates.....They are a little afraid of Kennedy and they know Biden is so far gone he might end up peeing on the stage while he struggles to get his words out..."What a World, Stella..What a World !!"

Anyay it isn't a popular decision..

USA Today poll...Do you believe the Democrats should have debates ???

Yes 80%
No..16%

Has there ever been a sitting President who announced his candidacy to run again for a second term failing to get his party's nomination?    We know that the office lasts for four years and that a sitting president has the option of running again for a second term of office.  This gives 8 years maximum.

Biden is getting old and his detractors say he will keel over at any moment and that he doesn't have full control of his faculties. However, I don't see any definite evidence of that - he gets tired, he sometimes mumbles his words, his orientation is often wack but it seems to me in terms of policy it is the same war-hawk Joe Biden as senator as President.

...... Meant to quote this but ended up editing it to something else

No name Bertie wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I see the naughty Democrats have cancelled the Primary debates.....They are a little afraid of Kennedy and they know Biden is so far gone he might end up peeing on the stage while he struggles to get his words out..."What a World, Stella..What a World !!"

Anyay it isn't a popular decision..

USA Today poll...Do you believe the Democrats should have debates ???

Yes 80%
No..16%

Has there ever been a sitting President who announced his candidacy to run again for a second term failing to get his party's nomination?    We know that the office lasts for four years and that a sitting president has the option of running again for a second term of office.  This gives 8 years maximum.  .

LBJ in 68......Pulled after sneaking a win against McGovern in New Hamshire (Anti vietnam war candidate)......Generally Franklin Pierce is considered the only one in 1857 when the US was ungovernable with the missouri compromise and approaching civil war.....Buchanan took it off him but he had similar problems and lost to Lincoln.....

Five Presidents in ten years.........Zach Taylor (Died in the whitehouse garden)....Fillmore.....Pierce...Buchanan and Lincoln.....

Other Presidents like Andrew Johnson...Chester Arthur were strong armed by heavy hitting Republicans, Edwin Stanton types, who were the power of the party back then to step down...

No name Bertie wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I see the naughty Democrats have cancelled the Primary debates.....They are a little afraid of Kennedy and they know Biden is so far gone he might end up peeing on the stage while he struggles to get his words out..."What a World, Stella..What a World !!"

Anyay it isn't a popular decision..

USA Today poll...Do you believe the Democrats should have debates ???

Yes 80%
No..16%

Has there ever been a sitting President who announced his candidacy to run again for a second term failing to get his party's nomination?    We know that the office lasts for four years and that a sitting president has the option of running again for a second term of office.  This gives 8 years maximum.  

Biden is getting old and his detractors say he will keel over at any moment and that he doesn't have full control of his faculties.   However, I don't see any definite evidence of that - he gets tired, he sometimes mumbles his words, his orientation is often wack but it seems to me in terms of policy it is the same war-hawk Joe Biden as senator as President.

The real Joe Biden is unfortunately spending the rest of his days in a convalescent home...  just outta Scranton. The nurses make sure all his needs are attended to and he allows them to sit on his lap from time to time.

What you see is actually of holograph of Joe. It's pretty damn good actually... when you think of it.

Obviously, there's still a few bugs being ironed out after the Russians hacked his CPU. So that perfectly explains what you consider to be his odd behaviour; loss of control of his faculties, mumbling words, 'wack' orientation, groping and staring blankly into space for awkward amounts of time.

Hopefully those Ukrainian whiz kids can sort things out. That's what they've been paid to do. Expect to see Joe walk more confidently on and off stages, negotiate those steep steps to and from aircraft more fluently... possibly some time in early 2024.  Come on man. Giv'm-a-break.

No name Bertie wrote:

Samo wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:

Samo wrote:I thought the Electoral College voted for the President.

And you wouldn't be wrong.  When they vote against the peoples vote from their state then we would hear about it.

So the people dont directly vote for a President.

I kindly draw you to the response I gave duty281

Duty281 wrote: Answer me this, please: what chance does an ordinary independent person, of no great financial means, have of becoming US President?

No name Bertie wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:America is more democratic than the British system given the number of candidates that can run for President including non-politicians .....

...

mountain man wrote:...

Duty281 wrote: ...

...

I was supporting that in bold.   The rest is a discussion of process and a discussion of the psychology of the voter.

None of that is relevant to the point I was challenging, which was

No name Bertie wrote:In the USA the people directly appoint the President through a primary and secondary election process

And we've established that they dont, so thats not an argument to say the US system is more democratic.

the-goon2 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:No evidence? He was on live tv just before it happened and no doubt his words incited or if you like inspired those to riot where 5 people were killed.

Yes Democrats want to stop Trump, just as Republicans want to stop Biden.

How you can defend Trump is remarkable.

Name the 5 that died.

In fact only 1 person died. Her name was Ashley Babbit, she unarmed and shot by the police. No one else died. The fact you use this talking point shows you simply absorb and regurgitate lies from the media.

He told the protestors to protest peacefully numerous times, told them to go home. The fact you don't know this also shocking.

Interesting you don't condemn the democrats for inspiring the BLM riots, which were far worse.

Utter whataboutery. Irrelevant to whether Trump is a criminal, or not.

Eh? Mountain was bringing false claims that Trump instigated a riot, this implies that inciting riots is a bad thing. So I'm simply pointing out the rank hypocrisy when nothing is said about the democrats instigating the BLM riots.

It seems you don't like it when I hold up the mirror to you face.

Wrong. It's still whataboutery, but then you wouldn't understand that. Someone being hypocritical (in your opinion) has chuff all to do with whether any BLM riots are relevant to Trump being a criminal. Then again, guess you could say there might be a link - Trump is a nob, and his behaviour and support of white supremacist ideologues catalysed the BLM movement? I could go for that.

What "crime" are you referring to?

Oh! So sorry. Alleged crimes....

What alleged crimes are you referring to? When you said this:

Someone being hypocritical (in your opinion) has chuff all to do with whether any BLM riots are relevant to Trump being a criminal

Everyone better keep well away from you; such density might collapse on itself. How about the indictment for retaining all of those lovely secret documents he should have returned? How about the impending indictment (IMO) for his attempts in Georgia to subvert the 2020 election?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

mountain man wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:The regime is doing everything they can to stop Trump from winning in 2024.

Bogus impeachments
Constant smears and lies
Social Media censorship
Now prison time

All this does is undermine the democratic system in the US. Only a fool can't see that this is a political witch hunt.
Even the left wing partisans know it is, but since they are partisans, they don't care. But they'll lie about it being what it is.

It might be a political witch hunt but then again only a fool would defend Trump or think he's not guilty. He incited the riot on Capitol hill, he had documents he shouldn't have, he tried to "persuade" Raffensperger to find him votes, on tape admitting sexually abusing women etc etc etc.

All Presidents have documents they shouldn't have...Non Presidents like Clinton were done for taking home classified documents...It's BS...All Commanders in Chief hide stuff or try to..

DOJ and the rest of Biden's beat are scared of Trump and are targetting him.......Kennedy had Nixon and his family audited regularly....Roosevelt had his people follow President Hoover around because he was the leading anti war voice......"Old Men like Roosevelt always start wars but it is our Youth that pays the price"...

Wake up buddy...No "might" about it.....Trump is leading Biden in the polls !!...,,Trump didn't try to stop the riot but there is no evidence to say he incited it but he certainly may have been happy to see it go......Fox news and other GOP supporting media were more to blame..

What is it about this that you, and so many others, don't appear to understand?!?

This is not, primarily, about having the docs. It's about that bumhole's response to NARA requests, abiding by the PRA etc etc when he's asked to return what he shouldn't have had in the first place.

You don't understand that when Clinton had illegal documents nothing was done because Obama was in office and it was a Democratic DOJ...Plus 90% of the Client Legacy media is Democrat...

Try to be more objective and less subjective.......If Trump was a Democrat it wouldn't be a problem....

Try taking the tinfoil off....

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:No evidence? He was on live tv just before it happened and no doubt his words incited or if you like inspired those to riot where 5 people were killed.

Yes Democrats want to stop Trump, just as Republicans want to stop Biden.

How you can defend Trump is remarkable.

Name the 5 that died.

In fact only 1 person died. Her name was Ashley Babbit, she unarmed and shot by the police. No one else died. The fact you use this talking point shows you simply absorb and regurgitate lies from the media.

He told the protestors to protest peacefully numerous times, told them to go home. The fact you don't know this also shocking.

Interesting you don't condemn the democrats for inspiring the BLM riots, which were far worse.

Utter whataboutery. Irrelevant to whether Trump is a criminal, or not.

Eh? Mountain was bringing false claims that Trump instigated a riot, this implies that inciting riots is a bad thing. So I'm simply pointing out the rank hypocrisy when nothing is said about the democrats instigating the BLM riots.

It seems you don't like it when I hold up the mirror to you face.

Wrong. It's still whataboutery, but then you wouldn't understand that. Someone being hypocritical (in your opinion) has chuff all to do with whether any BLM riots are relevant to Trump being a criminal. Then again, guess you could say there might be a link - Trump is a nob, and his behaviour and support of white supremacist ideologues catalysed the BLM movement? I could go for that.

What "crime" are you referring to?

Oh! So sorry. Alleged crimes....

What alleged crimes are you referring to? When you said this:

Someone being hypocritical (in your opinion) has chuff all to do with whether any BLM riots are relevant to Trump being a criminal

Everyone better keep well away from you; such density might collapse on itself. How about the indictment for retaining all of those lovely secret documents he should have returned? How about the impending indictment (IMO) for his attempts in Georgia to subvert the 2020 election?

Thought so.

Well dipsh!t, we were talking about J6, and not these charges. Try reading you spoon.

Bye Goon, I don't think it's been enjoyable for any of us.

Soul Requiem wrote:Bye Goon, I don't think it's been enjoyable for any of us.

Bye, come back with better arguments, and I'll happily discuss the issues of the day with you.

maybe we could do it with civility, if you are capable of it.

I'm happy to forgive and forget if you are.

the-goon2 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Bye Goon, I don't think it's been enjoyable for any of us.

Bye, come back with better arguments, and I'll happily discuss the issues of the day with you.

maybe you we could do with civility, if you are capable of it.

I'm happy to forgive and forget if you are.

Same goes for everyone on here. I'm here are debates and discussions, not insults.

But if you want name calling, i'll bring myself down to your level.

You'll see, I never started it.

the-goon2 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Bye Goon, I don't think it's been enjoyable for any of us.

Bye, come back with better arguments, and I'll happily discuss the issues of the day with you.

No, you won't, because you are clearly not on here to happily discuss anything. You're here to tell other people they are wrong and that you are right. You're not here to listen to arguments, you're here to dismiss arguments.
It's odd, because this is a primarily a sports forum not a political debating forum, and even if you convinced the half dozen people on here that your views were right, so what? What would that actually achieve - would it make you feel better about yourself? Do you need to feel better about yourself? Everyone but you seems to realise this is all just a bit of fun to fill up a bit of time in our working days. You seem to take it seriously, as if it matters. It doesn't. If it makes you feel better to win, then I will tell you that you win. But I'd also advise a bit of therapy.
There was a guy on the news who said Trump was sent from God, like Moses. What's the point of discussing anything with weirdos like that?

No name Bertie wrote:America is more democratic than the British system ....

If anyone would like to present a case for the reverse:  That the British system is more or equally democratic as the American system, then they are free to do so.   That would be a useful contribution.

No name Bertie wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:America is more democratic than the British system ....

If anyone would like to present a case for the reverse:  That the British system is more or equally democratic as the American system, then they are free to do so.   That would be a useful contribution.

In 2 out of the last 6 US elections the winner has lost the popular vote.
In the UK I don't think the winning party has lost the popular vote since 1951.

No name Bertie wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:America is more democratic than the British system ....

If anyone would like to present a case for the reverse:  That the British system is more or equally democratic as the American system, then they are free to do so.   That would be a useful contribution.

Personally I think that getting less votes than your opponent but still winning is the exact opposite of democracy.

I'd quote Radiohead myself and say hail to the thief. The 2000 presidential election was not democracy in action.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Bye Goon, I don't think it's been enjoyable for any of us.

Bye, come back with better arguments, and I'll happily discuss the issues of the day with you.

No, you won't, because you are clearly not on here to happily discuss anything. You're here to tell other people they are wrong and that you are right. You're not here to listen to arguments, you're here to dismiss arguments.
It's odd, because this is a primarily a sports forum not a political debating forum, and even if you convinced the half dozen people on here that your views were right, so what? What would that actually achieve - would it make you feel better about yourself? Do you need to feel better about yourself? Everyone but you seems to realise this is all just a bit of fun to fill up a bit of time in our working days. You seem to take it seriously, as if it matters. It doesn't. If it makes you feel better to win, then I will tell you that you win. But I'd also advise a bit of therapy.
There was a guy on the news who said Trump was sent from God, like Moses. What's the point of discussing anything with weirdos like that?

If it is all a bit of fun, why are you so abusive towards me? I've never insulted anyone that hasn't attacked me personally first.

I don't simply dismiss other's ideas, I (try to, but feel I do a decent job of) dismantle them. You just don't like it because I've interrupted your little hive mind of confirmation bias.

For example on the Ukraine thread, there been very productive conversations on the issue. There were some interesting musings on the bombing of the dam. Now idiots like Superflyweight tried to derail it, but thankfully he got back under his rock so the adults could talk.

We had a decent back and forth on guns, we disagreed of course. But I thought it was civil until you started being abusive, and stopped engaging my arguments. Engage on that and we'll be able to hear perspectives we haven't heard previously.  

My advice would be, if you want to call me an idiot, bumhole etc. You better have a watertight position on the subject, or I will fire back.

Same goes for everyone on here. I'm here are debates and discussions, not insults.

How ironic you then post this :

Now idiots like Superflyweight tried to derail it, but thankfully he got back under his rock so the adults could talk.

Oh dear.

I think you'll find that free speech allows anyone to call anyone whatever they want, until an Admin or Mod steps in. I think it's fairly obvious you're racist, so I guess that's why you get called a racist. How do you know I'm not from the 3rd world, and therefore you did insult me and my family and friends?
You use terms like 'dismantled'. I find that kind of arrogant attitude amusing but it also shows you are here to 'win' not to participate. It's not a competition.
As for debating, I ask again, why would I spend any serious amount of time on it? Even if I changed your mind, or you changed mine, so what? Ultimately we are nobody to each other.
Would it not be better if you spent your time in local politics and used your arguments in that arena to help change the world for what you consider to be the better - if you're that passionate about it?
You could have public debates and influence many people. Why limit yourself to here?

mountain man wrote:

Same goes for everyone on here. I'm here are debates and discussions, not insults.

How ironic you then post this :

Now idiots like Superflyweight tried to derail it, but thankfully he got back under his rock so the adults could talk.

Oh dear.

Look at the history of this guy, all personal attacks. Like I said, I won't start it, but i'll dish it right back.

He can apologise any time and it stops.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I think you'll find that free speech allows anyone to call anyone whatever they want, until an Admin or Mod steps in. I think it's fairly obvious you're racist, so I guess that's why you get called a racist. How do you know I'm not from the 3rd world, and therefore you did insult me and my family and friends?
You use terms like 'dismantled'. I find that kind of arrogant attitude amusing but it also shows you are here to 'win' not to participate. It's not a competition.
As for debating, I ask again, why would I spend any serious amount of time on it? Even if I changed your mind, or you changed mine, so what? Ultimately we are nobody to each other.
Would it not be better if you spent your time in local politics and used your arguments in that arena to help change the world for what you consider to be the better - if you're that passionate about it?
You could have public debates and influence many people. Why limit yourself to here?

What term would you like me to use instead of the 3rd world?

What untrue statement have I said? I assume you would agree that if a statement or fact or stat regarding a race is true, it cannot be racist.

If I had positions you could simply refute easily, you would play the ball not the man, if you play the man, I assume you can't play the ball.

You assume I can't play the ball, when in fact I choose not to play the ball.
I play the ball with others on here who I disagree with on many things because they come across as decent, friendly people.
But when someone comes on here and thinks they know everything, thinks themselves superior and arrogantly claims to dismantle everyone else's arguments, I end up thinking 'What a d1ckhead he's not worth it'. Is that an unreasonable attitude?

JuliusHMarx wrote:You assume I can't play the ball, when in fact I choose not to play the ball.
I play the ball with others on here who I disagree with on many things because they come across as decent, friendly people.
But when someone comes on here and thinks they know everything, thinks themselves superior and arrogantly claims to dismantle everyone else's arguments, I end up thinking 'What a d1ckhead he's not worth it'. Is that an unreasonable attitude?

What have I said that's untrue?

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:You assume I can't play the ball, when in fact I choose not to play the ball.
I play the ball with others on here who I disagree with on many things because they come across as decent, friendly people.
But when someone comes on here and thinks they know everything, thinks themselves superior and arrogantly claims to dismantle everyone else's arguments, I end up thinking 'What a d1ckhead he's not worth it'. Is that an unreasonable attitude?

What have I said that's untrue?

Well for a start : you assert that all the charges being brought against Trump are just politically motivated witch hunts. Despite the fact that Trump very obviously kept in his possession documents to which he was no longer entitled . And further that when asked to hand them back he refused to do so and (as heard on tape discussing with his lawyers) tried to prevent the relevant authorities from discovering and retrieving them. Seems fairly clear this was illegal.
As for inciting the riots : no doubt his lawyers will argue he really did try to promote just a "peaceful" protest. But most people other than his devoted/demented (?) supporters saw his speeches calling for the overturning of a "stolen" election to be deliberately inflammatory and likely to lead to serious trouble.
Innocent until proved guilty , sure. And he will have his day in court. But to suggest these charges are without foundation and purely an attempt to stifle a political opponent beggars belief.

Not even getting to trying to get a State Governor to "find" thousands of votes to flip an election...

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:You assume I can't play the ball, when in fact I choose not to play the ball.
I play the ball with others on here who I disagree with on many things because they come across as decent, friendly people.
But when someone comes on here and thinks they know everything, thinks themselves superior and arrogantly claims to dismantle everyone else's arguments, I end up thinking 'What a d1ckhead he's not worth it'. Is that an unreasonable attitude?

What have I said that's untrue?

Who knows anymore? Who cares? Not me. Not enough to look back or list anything.

Edit - seem to recall something about equating the Democrats with the Nazis.

alfie wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:You assume I can't play the ball, when in fact I choose not to play the ball.
I play the ball with others on here who I disagree with on many things because they come across as decent, friendly people.
But when someone comes on here and thinks they know everything, thinks themselves superior and arrogantly claims to dismantle everyone else's arguments, I end up thinking 'What a d1ckhead he's not worth it'. Is that an unreasonable attitude?

What have I said that's untrue?

Well for a start : you assert that all the charges being brought against Trump are just politically motivated witch hunts. Despite the fact that Trump very obviously kept in his possession documents to which he was no longer entitled . And further that when asked to hand them back he refused to do so and (as heard on tape discussing with his lawyers) tried to prevent the relevant authorities from discovering and retrieving them. Seems fairly clear this was illegal.
As for inciting the riots  : no doubt his lawyers will argue he really did try to promote just a "peaceful" protest. But most people other than his devoted/demented (?) supporters saw his speeches calling for the overturning of a "stolen" election to be deliberately inflammatory and likely to lead to serious trouble.
Innocent until proved guilty , sure. And he will have his day in court. But to suggest these charges are without foundation and purely an attempt to stifle a political opponent beggars belief.

Not even getting to trying to get a State Governor to "find" thousands of votes to flip an election...

If the standards towards Trump are different to past presidents/politicians, then yes it's a politically motivated charge. Truss highlighted this several times.
Why were no charges for Hilary with the emails, or an inquiry into "10% for the big guy" on hunter biden's laptop, or Obama spying on Trump's campaign in 2016? I'm sure there are establishment republican scandals too where nothing happened. The attacks on Trump is establishment vs non-establishment, and Trump is an outsider they can't control.
I'm certain they would want to do anything to stop him. It seems quite naïve to think there isn't more at play. You don't don't get to the top of the greasy pole of politics without being machiavellian.

Trump clearly said march peacefully, not much more he can do.
J6 was by a long way one of the least violent riots of that period. A mostly peaceful protest, to coin CNN.

Don't see how any of this racist either mind.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:You assume I can't play the ball, when in fact I choose not to play the ball.
I play the ball with others on here who I disagree with on many things because they come across as decent, friendly people.
But when someone comes on here and thinks they know everything, thinks themselves superior and arrogantly claims to dismantle everyone else's arguments, I end up thinking 'What a d1ckhead he's not worth it'. Is that an unreasonable attitude?

What have I said that's untrue?

Who knows anymore? Who cares? Not me. Not enough to look back or list anything.

Edit - seem to recall something about equating the Democrats with the Nazis.

I guess I'm so right wing, all socialists look the same...

Samo wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:America is more democratic than the British system ....

If anyone would like to present a case for the reverse:  That the British system is more or equally democratic as the American system, then they are free to do so.   That would be a useful contribution.

Personally I think that getting less votes than your opponent but still winning is the exact opposite of democracy.

The US system is designed to keep small States relevant......If it was just the popular vote then the needs of say Farming States like Iowa and Minnesota would be neglected for California and Texas.....

Also it's easier and quicker because if it's close you are just recounting the relevant States instead of a 150 million votes..The nightmare that would be......

Makes it easier to campaign.........The presidential candidates don't need to traipse around Swamp valley if you are a Democrat or sunny California if you are a Republican....Less costly too...You don't need to buy advertising in certain States etc..

It's better than the popular vote.......There have only been 5 winners in history who haven't collected the most anyway...Rarely an issue.

the-goon2 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:No evidence? He was on live tv just before it happened and no doubt his words incited or if you like inspired those to riot where 5 people were killed.

Yes Democrats want to stop Trump, just as Republicans want to stop Biden.

How you can defend Trump is remarkable.

Name the 5 that died.

In fact only 1 person died. Her name was Ashley Babbit, she unarmed and shot by the police. No one else died. The fact you use this talking point shows you simply absorb and regurgitate lies from the media.

He told the protestors to protest peacefully numerous times, told them to go home. The fact you don't know this also shocking.

Interesting you don't condemn the democrats for inspiring the BLM riots, which were far worse.

Utter whataboutery. Irrelevant to whether Trump is a criminal, or not.

Eh? Mountain was bringing false claims that Trump instigated a riot, this implies that inciting riots is a bad thing. So I'm simply pointing out the rank hypocrisy when nothing is said about the democrats instigating the BLM riots.

It seems you don't like it when I hold up the mirror to you face.

Wrong. It's still whataboutery, but then you wouldn't understand that. Someone being hypocritical (in your opinion) has chuff all to do with whether any BLM riots are relevant to Trump being a criminal. Then again, guess you could say there might be a link - Trump is a nob, and his behaviour and support of white supremacist ideologues catalysed the BLM movement? I could go for that.

What "crime" are you referring to?

Oh! So sorry. Alleged crimes....

What alleged crimes are you referring to? When you said this:

Someone being hypocritical (in your opinion) has chuff all to do with whether any BLM riots are relevant to Trump being a criminal

Everyone better keep well away from you; such density might collapse on itself. How about the indictment for retaining all of those lovely secret documents he should have returned? How about the impending indictment (IMO) for his attempts in Georgia to subvert the 2020 election?

Thought so.        

Well dipsh!t, we were talking about J6, and not these charges. Try reading you spoon.  

Yep, that's about your level. Just because I didn't mention the Jan 6th issue, doesn't mean I wouldn't include it. You know what a phrase starting with "How about..." means, don't you? No; didn't think so. I'll help you out - it means "For example...". There are so many potential criminal charges heading his way, I didn't have the willpower to list them all.

Let me help you again - for example, his role in the Jan 6th insurrection and attack on the Capitol Building?

It still doesn't mean your mention of BLM etc in the same breath is anything but whataboutery, but then you don't address that because you're bang to rights and know it.

Grow up.

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:You assume I can't play the ball, when in fact I choose not to play the ball.
I play the ball with others on here who I disagree with on many things because they come across as decent, friendly people.
But when someone comes on here and thinks they know everything, thinks themselves superior and arrogantly claims to dismantle everyone else's arguments, I end up thinking 'What a d1ckhead he's not worth it'. Is that an unreasonable attitude?

What have I said that's untrue?

Who knows anymore? Who cares? Not me. Not enough to look back or list anything.

Edit - seem to recall something about equating the Democrats with the Nazis.

I guess I'm so right wing, all socialists look the same...

I guess that's a joke of sorts, right? You're not one of those strange people who think the Nazis were actually socialist?

Just ignore him and he'll go away.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:You assume I can't play the ball, when in fact I choose not to play the ball.
I play the ball with others on here who I disagree with on many things because they come across as decent, friendly people.
But when someone comes on here and thinks they know everything, thinks themselves superior and arrogantly claims to dismantle everyone else's arguments, I end up thinking 'What a d1ckhead he's not worth it'. Is that an unreasonable attitude?

What have I said that's untrue?

Who knows anymore? Who cares? Not me. Not enough to look back or list anything.

Edit - seem to recall something about equating the Democrats with the Nazis.

I guess I'm so right wing, all socialists look the same...

I guess that's a joke of sorts, right? You're not one of those strange people who think the Nazis were actually socialist?

Yes, it's a joke, the dems aren't nazis. But the nazis are socialists.

National Socialists. In the name.

Top down ordering of society. Same as socialism

Planned economy. Same as socialism

Forced population to worship the leader like a god. Same as socialism

Oppressed/oppressor victim mindset. Same as socialism. Replace workers with Germans, and bourgeoisie with jews, and you have the same ideology.

Hatred of any freedom or dissent. Same as socialism

Fascism is socialism but uses race/nationality as the prism to view the world, not class.

Desire to conquer neighbours (especially Poland).

Some of these traits aren't exclusive to Socialists/Fascists, but you can't deny the similarities.

That isn't what socialism or fascism are.

Socialism- a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Fascism- a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition