US 2024 Presidential Election

Kwak

Elite Member
Sep 11, 2014
2,301
1,826
118
Country
4
Closer to literal Nazism everyday.

This movement of scum needs to be stopped.


1728712901518.png


“It’s the enemy from within.

“All the scum we have to deal with that hate our country,” he continued. “That’s a bigger enemy than China and Russia.… Everyday Americans like Cindy are living in fear all because Kamala Harris decided to empty the slums and prison cells of Caracas, and many other places. Happening all over the world.”
...

“They took the criminals out of Caracas, and they put them along your border, and they said if you ever come back, we’re going to kill you,” Trump said.
“Think of that!” he continued. “We have to live with these animals. But we won’t live with them for long!”
At that, one person in the crowd shouted, “Kill them!”

In the same speech, Trump called for the expeditious “removal of these savage gangs,” promising that, if elected, he would appoint “elite squads” to conduct mass deportations. He also vowed to enforce the death penalty for “any migrant that kills an American citizen or a law enforcement officer.”
Last year, the MAGA leader leaned on appalling language that immediately echoed Adolf Hitler’s fascistic rhetoric designed to dehumanize his enemies. Trump referred to his political rivals—the GOP-anointed “Communists, Marxists, Fascists, and Radical Left Thugs”—as “vermin,” and claimed that immigrants are “destroying the blood of our country.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Chimpzy

Simian Abomination
Legacy
Escapist +
Apr 3, 2020
12,743
9,132
118
During her campaign remarks in Scottsdale, in front of a banner that read "Country Over Party," she added that she doesn't want "yes people" around her.
Whatever Republicans appointed will likely be yes people tho. Just not yes to Harris.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,052
3,781
118

Whatever Republicans appointed will likely be yes people tho. Just not yes to Harris.
Reaching out to Republicans has worked very well in the past, from the point of view of Republicans or people who support their policies.
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
28,927
12,067
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
Closer to literal Nazism everyday.

This movement of scum needs to be stopped.


View attachment 12020


“It’s the enemy from within.

“All the scum we have to deal with that hate our country,” he continued. “That’s a bigger enemy than China and Russia.… Everyday Americans like Cindy are living in fear all because Kamala Harris decided to empty the slums and prison cells of Caracas, and many other places. Happening all over the world.”
...

“They took the criminals out of Caracas, and they put them along your border, and they said if you ever come back, we’re going to kill you,” Trump said.
“Think of that!” he continued. “We have to live with these animals. But we won’t live with them for long!”
At that, one person in the crowd shouted, “Kill them!”

In the same speech, Trump called for the expeditious “removal of these savage gangs,” promising that, if elected, he would appoint “elite squads” to conduct mass deportations. He also vowed to enforce the death penalty for “any migrant that kills an American citizen or a law enforcement officer.”
Last year, the MAGA leader leaned on appalling language that immediately echoed Adolf Hitler’s fascistic rhetoric designed to dehumanize his enemies. Trump referred to his political rivals—the GOP-anointed “Communists, Marxists, Fascists, and Radical Left Thugs”—as “vermin,” and claimed that immigrants are “destroying the blood of our country.”
 

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,178
6,433
118
Whatever Republicans appointed will likely be yes people tho. Just not yes to Harris.
In practice, there are always likely to be "crossover" areas where the policies of the two main parties are so similar that a leader might as easily install a pragmatic member of the "other" party.

Tippy is effectively mentioning one, because as it's clear as it needs to be that Democratic foreign policy seems little different from Republican. The main difference is that the Democrats have to take into account that half their own voters hate their foreign policy. So once Biden's signed off another consignment of arms to Netanyahu to feed Israel's Arab-murdering machine, he also has to pop onto TV to say how regrettable all that death is. In a sense, Trump is more honest here because he'd just let Netanyahu murder everyone and be openly supportive of it, which is a more accurate representation of US policy.
 

tippy2k2

Beloved Tyrant
Legacy
Mar 15, 2008
14,524
1,837
118
You are perfectly free to vote based on your conscious. Ignoring the reality of how that vote impacts the election outcome in a First Past The Post voting system is rather sad though.
It is rather sad that The Democrats have quite literally become The George W Bush era Republicans and you all are cheering it on and yelling at people who say "Hey, can we NOT have Diet Republicans in office?". Harris is quite literally looking to put Republicans in her cabinet, is running interview to interview screaming from the rooftops about how Dick FUCKING Cheney is on her team, and that funding a Genocide is fine because We ❤ Israel too much to do a single thing about it.

1728739514566.png

I've said it before and I'll say it again; if Harris wants me to vote for her, SHE has to do shit that I want. Her not being Trump isn't a reason to vote for Harris. We've done this same fucking song and dance for the last 20ish years. I'd figure at SOME point Democrat Voters would figure it out but I guess not this year. I can't wait for 2028 when we're told that NEXT election we'll work on change but this one time we have to hold our nose and vote for the "lesser of two evils".
 
  • Like
Reactions: crimson5pheonix

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,890
6,234
118
Country
United Kingdom

Mark Harvey (Senior director of resilience policy), Olivia Troye (homeland security advisor), and Kevin Caroll (senior councellor to John Kelly)-- all of whom worked in Trump's administration-- have each attested that Trump wanted to withhold disaster relief funding on the basis of the affected areas not being politically supportive of him.

"Trump absolutely didn’t want to give aid to California or Puerto Rico purely for partisan politics – because they didn’t vote for him".

"We had to sit around and brainstorm a way where he would agree to this because he looked at everything through a political lens. There were instances where disaster declarations would sit on his desk for days".
 
Last edited:

Hades

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2013
2,207
1,651
118
Country
The Netherlands

Democrats must be getting real worried about the anti-genocide candidate...
Can you be anti genocide when you scheme to get Trump elected though? Because nothing suggest he'd be better to Gaza and everything suggests he'd give Bibi even more free reign. And in regards to Ukraine Trump is even the only pro genocide candidate.
 

tippy2k2

Beloved Tyrant
Legacy
Mar 15, 2008
14,524
1,837
118
Can you be anti genocide when you scheme to get Trump elected though? Because nothing suggest he'd be better to Gaza and everything suggests he'd give Bibi even more free reign. And in regards to Ukraine Trump is even the only pro genocide candidate.
Once again...

Trump being shit is an excellent reason to not vote for Trump. It is not a good reason to vote for Harris.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crimson5pheonix
Jun 11, 2023
2,769
2,019
118
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Just to be clear. The reason why Harris, and many politicians, are robotically following teleprompters is that THAT'S WHAT WE WANT THEM TO. If Harris says something offensive, there will be full page spreads in paper/websites. And every speech has to cater for at least 100 different interest groups that have many mutually exclusive to each other

For example, if you're pro-Big Business, you are actively hurting workers, farmers, small business and unions. Perhaps soceity and trust in government institutions if the topic is food/drug safety or climate change

Speeches need to thread a needle between these interest groups. Trump doesn't have to do any of that because he only ever talks to three interest groups: big business, blue collar workees who think giving all their taxes to big business will help them and racists

The manufactured responses politicians are *required* to make are the main reason the people lost trust in them. Making the same old promises and fancy speeches and changing little to nothing in the grand scheme of things.

West MI has a bunch of smaller farms and aside from one highway billboard for Harris we’ve seen a lot of Trump signs. This is even after his trade war fiasco. Maybe it has something to do with Biden’s LNG ban, idk, but I think in general farmers tend to side conservatively.

Small businesses also benefited from his 2017 tax plan. It isn’t just big business.

As for taxes, there is also no shortage of wealthy big business democrats supporting Harris.


The problem is like most anyone in that group they find ways to circumvent tax hikes. It’s why their wealth grows regardless of who’s in office. The irony is with Trump is he’s also been quite a flip flopper over the last few decades between dems and repubs on voting, and even donated to Harris at one point. He could’ve probably gone the bipartisan route like Arnold in CA, but being mostly an opportunist and lacking his character that comes from being a self-made immigrant, he was probably bound to land firmly on one side or the other once reaching the presidential level.

At the end of the day, the deciding factor for most seems to be between more or less government regulation and intrusion into their daily lives, placing more faith in government vs free enterprise, etc. Some government is essential and big business definitely needs a tighter leash especially with food quality (FDA being in bed with them doesn’t help either) and environmental concerns but we’ve always struggled finding a good balance thanks partly to increased corruption on both ends. Relying on a centralized solution to multifaceted problems historically hasn’t ever really turned out well, but the U.S. is kind of an unprecedented beast to reign in given advancements in industry, tech, and all the money behind it.
 
Last edited:

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,178
6,433
118
The manufactured responses politicians are *required* to make are the main reason the people lost trust in them. Making the same old promises and fancy speeches and changing little to nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Manufactured answers are in large part the result of politicians trying to micromanage the political media environment - to never be caught out, minimise gaffes, be asked difficult questions. That's why top level politicians tend to highly controlled media environments, rather than standing in front of unvetted audiences and journalists to take questions which might lead to surprises that get them in trouble. But that is in large part the result of the public and media, and the intolerance they can show for errors.

The second issue is slightly different, which is the disconnect between government and the people. Good government and popular will are not necessarily the same thing, even before all the special interest groups subverting decision-making towards their own narrow interests. The end result of this disconnect is politicians attempting to conceal the activity of government when they cannot defend it to the people. In many cases, politicians also cannot meaningfully explain the activity of government to the public because it's too complicated to get the detail across and be understood. All of this leads to vagueness, gross simplifications and bland platitudes.

Finally, changing things is difficult. Organisations, particularly large ones and especially ones as large as countries, have a huge amount of inertia - even more so when, like the USA, the political system is geared towards gridlock. Many policies may take years to generate a noticeable outcome, longer than a politician has to justify themselves for the next election; change can also be reverted by the next government. Plus that "stability" is a huge plus: organisations, particularly businesses, tend to have plans looking years into the future, and uncertainty means risk means all manner of negativities. This issue of wider impacts also drives change to be incremental rather than radical. Plus that people may want "change", but it's not always clear what change they want at a whole population level. We could imagine a situation where a third of the population want left-leaning change, a third want right-leaning change, and a third like it how it is: two-thirds want change, but only one-third will be satisfied by any change made. Thus there can be both vast dissatisfaction with the status quo, but at the same time no mandate for change either.
 

Hades

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2013
2,207
1,651
118
Country
The Netherlands
Once again...

Trump being shit is an excellent reason to not vote for Trump. It is not a good reason to vote for Harris.
Great but I wasn't talking about voting for Harris. Just the logic of ''anti genocide'' being the reason when it cannot be. One cannot be an anti genocide candidate when knowingly boosting the more pro genocide candidate.

We have miss ''anti genocide candidate's'' team not just saying they accept the risk of the more pro genocide candidate winning, but revealing they're actively scheming to get that done, which obviously isn't very anti genocide.
1728828397178.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan