US 2024 Presidential Election

[Satinavian]

I am still disappointed the EU didn't accept Russia into the EU.

We did everything to make that happen. Russia didn't want to.

 

[Bedinsis]

I am still disappointed the EU didn't accept Russia into the EU. You guys could have had a more powerful empire than the US right now.

I'd prefer the EU not contain any dictatorships.

 

[Hades]

I am still disappointed the EU didn't accept Russia into the EU. You guys could have had a more powerful empire than the US right now.

you don't get a safe, prosperous and powerful Gondor by fusing it with Mordor.

Russia is against everything European civilization stands for. Its against every protection, freedom and rights that our societies have. We'd have gained nothing from taking them on board. Rather than make us more powerful they'd just have dragged us down to their barbaric level.

 

[Gergar12]

We did everything to make that happen. Russia didn't want to.

Putin did want to join NATO, counter it by offering the EU.

I'd prefer the EU not contain any dictatorships.

Hungary says hi.

you don't get a safe, prosperous and powerful Gondor by fusing it with Mordor.

Russia is against everything European civilization stands for. Its against every protection, freedom and rights that our societies have. We'd have gained nothing from taking them on board. Rather than make us more powerful they'd just have dragged us down to their barbaric level.

You could influence them, get Russians to go to vacation, and learn about democracy in Western Europe. Also you could gain Siberia instead of France being forced to keep colonies in West Africa.

 

[Satinavian]

A lot of European countries did everything they could to get Russia connected to the West after the end of the Cold War. But it did just not work. Russians still choose Putin and his clique promising a return to past glory, that was more alluring than being democracy in a group of equals. Particularly when many of those equals were your former pawns.

The EU did not snub, exclude or deny Russia. It is not responsible for the trajectory Russia took.

 

[bluegate]

One of the biggest members of the EU trusted Russia to the point of constructing a gas pipeline directly to Russia, tying it's livelihood directly to Russia.

For fuck's sake man, Russia was given plenty of chances and olive branches these past 30+ years. They chose to behave like orcs.

 

[Hades]

Its a funny turn of events that Trump's fans have always insisted he's a uniquely peaceful president and that this influenced their vote. But aside from not ending any wars Trump went out of his way to start a new pointless war in the Middle East.

But you know who did end a war without starting any new ones? Biden. Seems he's the uniquely peaceful president and that those supposedly desiring this didn't appriciate it as much as they say they do.

 

[Schadrach]

Mark Kelly it is.

Fine

1. Mark Kelly
2. Abigail Spanberger
3. Pete Buttigieg
4. Ruben Gallego
5. Kamala Harris
6. Seth Moulton
7. Josh Shapiro

It's sad Harris is that high on the list. She's only ever going to get the one shot at winning POTUS, and that shot was because Biden dropped out (and Biden only picked her as VP because a woman of color shored up his apparent weakness of being a milquetoast boring old white guy among the progressive wing). She couldn't win a primary if her life depended on it. And you only put 4 other Dems above her.

Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com)

Trump: "We have a thing called a war, or as they would rather say, a military operation. It's for legal reasons. Because as a military operation, I don't need any approvals. As a war you're supposed to get approval from Congress. Something like that. So I call it a military operation."

bsky.app

Literally saying the quiet part out loud, our president.

"We have a thing called a war, or as they would rather say, a military operation. It's for legal reasons. Because as a military operation, I don't need any approvals. As a war you're supposed to get approval from Congress. Something like that. So I call it a military operation."

I mean, he's just saying what every POTUS has done since WW2 without pretending otherwise. For once, I have to applaud his honesty - we haven't been to "war" since WW2, it's all been "military operations" and "policing actions" and the like since.

 

[Gergar12]

A lot of European countries did everything they could to get Russia connected to the West after the end of the Cold War. But it did just not work. Russians still choose Putin and his clique promising a return to past glory, that was more alluring than being democracy in a group of equals. Particularly when many of those equals were your former pawns.

The EU did not snub, exclude or deny Russia. It is not responsible for the trajectory Russia took.

I am not saying it was the EU's fault, but they could have pushed harder which may have worked.

It's sad Harris is that high on the list. She's only ever going to get the one shot at winning POTUS, and that shot was because Biden dropped out (and Biden only picked her as VP because a woman of color shored up his apparent weakness of being a milquetoast boring old white guy among the progressive wing). She couldn't win a primary if her life depended on it. And you only put 4 other Dems above her.



I mean, he's just saying what every POTUS has done since WW2 without pretending otherwise. For once, I have to applaud his honesty - we haven't been to "war" since WW2, it's all been "military operations" and "policing actions" and the like since.

After the mess Trump put US soft power in, we need a cleaner experienced president that repairs the US image. Again Mark Kelly is my pick, but I suspect Newsom will win even if I don't want him to win, but I will vote for him over any republican I can think of.

 

[Bedinsis]

Hungary says hi.

And I'd prefer they deal with their democratic deficits or, failing that, that they were excluded from the EU.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

What has he built? What did his trickle down do for the country? But that's Republicans. Good at complaining and criticizing, but no actual plans. I know they do hate seeing the country rot, which makes them more traitorous. They'll tolerate traveling over broken roads and through decrepit, run down places full of homeless and mentally ill people that they have to be protected from if it means more money for themselves and their friends. It makes no sense. If I was obscenely wealthy, I would still want to see nice things. How long can you go from one mansion to another, from party to play to restaurant, trying not to look out your limo window in between, before the interiors make you claustrophobic and you decide that you've had enough of this ugly country? How do voters keep falling for trickle down?

It's democratic policy that causes much of that. Look at how Houston handles homelessness vs San Francisco. Democrats are soft on crime that causes more crime that causes more poverty. A city gets in a downward spiral if you don't stop crime because the people that can afford to move out will move out thereby lowering the amount of taxes coming in, then taxes are raised on the people still left and they are then have less money to spend, businesses can't stay open and be profitable in crime riddled areas and people will shop outside of the city/area (reducing yet again the amount of tax dollars coming), there's less jobs available because business can't stay open and it's even harder for people to make an honest living. The left thinks poverty begets crime (it does to a degree obviously) but crime begets poverty much more so. Oakland right now is a perfect example of this happening.

 

[Burnhardt]

After the mess Trump put US soft power in, we need a cleaner experienced president that repairs the US image. Again Mark Kelly is my pick, but I suspect Newsom will win even if I don't want him to win, but I will vote for him over any republican I can think of.

That's not going to happen, at least for several decades.

It is not Trump that has destroyed the US's image. It is the population who put him back in power, either by voting for him directly or indirectly by not bothering to try and stop it.

 

[Gergar12]

That's not going to happen, at least for several decades.

It is not Trump that has destroyed the US's image. It is the population who put him back in power, either by voting for him directly or indirectly by not bothering to try and stop it.

1/3 of the population didn't vote, 1/3 voted for Trump, 1/3 for Harris so your right, but there are ways for republicans to screw with democrats via voter registration and kicking them off voter rolls.

 

[Satinavian]

Burnhadt is right. The Bridges are thorougly burned. It will not take a Democratic president to undo the damage, it would take several decades of work. And both actual concessions and a lot of very public apologies.

But that is all unlikely. US soft power is probably mostly gone for good.

Oh, and slightly related
https://nextcloud.com/blog/press_re...s-euro-office-as-true-sovereign-office-suite/

 

[tstorm823]

But that is all unlikely. US soft power is probably mostly gone for good.

Is this delusion, or just wishful thinking?

 

[Burnhardt]

Is this delusion, or just wishful thinking?

Wishful thinking.

Trump has shredded or pulled the US out of many international agreements including the original Iran Nuclear Deal and trade agreements, some of which were signed by him during his first term.

For soft power to work, people need to be able to trust you'll keep your word. Trump (and therefore the people who helped put him in power) have destroyed this.

 

[Satinavian]

And not just Trump personally.

The American people as a whole has shown that they can reelect someone like him. After having witnessed his first term, after the coup attempt and after his many convictions.

Annd the American institutions have shown that all those touted checks and balances are worth nothing and that the rule of law is worth nothing there.

The lack of outrage about all the many scandals and crimes also shows that the Americans as a whole don't care all that much.

 

[Thaluikhain]

For soft power to work, people need to be able to trust you'll keep your word.

And not just you, but the person who comes after you. No mater how not Trumo the next Potus may or may not be, the one to come some time later is an unknown, and a precedent has been set about being Trump.

EDIT: The content of my post seems to have been made redundant by @Satinavian who got there slightly faster.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Marveling at how much he has declined. I didn't watch presidential debates when I was young.

Timestamped part: after just talking about his plan to lower taxes for companies, he complains about America looking like a third world country, the horrible state of the airports (comparing them to other countries') and roads, "and we've spent six trillion dollars in the Middle East according to a report that I just saw -- whether it's six or five, but it looks like it's six -- six trillion dollars. We could have rebuilt our country twice, and it's really a shame..."

What has he built? What did his trickle down do for the country? But that's Republicans. Good at complaining and criticizing, but no actual plans. I know they do hate seeing the country rot, which makes them more traitorous. They'll tolerate traveling over broken roads and through decrepit, run down places full of homeless and mentally ill people that they have to be protected from if it means more money for themselves and their friends. It makes no sense. If I was obscenely wealthy, I would still want to see nice things. How long can you go from one mansion to another, from party to play to restaurant, trying not to look out your limo window in between, before the interiors make you claustrophobic and you decide that you've had enough of this ugly country? How do voters keep falling for trickle down?



After ignoring them for days, I gave in and signed two petitions outside of the supermarket yesterday, one for lowering the local train fairs and the other for taxing billionaires, the latter of which will certainly be sabotaged by the Democrat governor again. But I said to the woman with all the petitions that if we want them to listen to us what we really need is a national strike. I didn't elaborate because she had no concept of what I was talking about. She carried on with her small talk. "How's your day going? You from here?"

What I've found based on my conservative parents and their conservative friends is that they just want to be able to ignore problems.

They don't care why someone is homeless, or whether it's a systemic issue or a mental health issue, or if that person just made bad life choices with drugs and alcohol. They just want to not have to see them or acknowledge their presence, and if they do have to acknowledge the issue because it's too big to hide they want to make sure it's not their problem to deal with.

Basically if you describe America as a house it's a huge McMansion with a crumbling foundation and Republicans want to be able to ignore the problem and punt it down the road for as long as possible in the hopes that someone else (their kids who inherit the problem) eventually pays for it, or they can burn it down for the insurance money.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

It's democratic policy that causes much of that. Look at how Houston handles homelessness vs San Francisco. Democrats are soft on crime that causes more crime that causes more poverty. A city gets in a downward spiral if you don't stop crime because the people that can afford to move out will move out thereby lowering the amount of taxes coming in, then taxes are raised on the people still left and they are then have less money to spend, businesses can't stay open and be profitable in crime riddled areas and people will shop outside of the city/area (reducing yet again the amount of tax dollars coming), there's less jobs available because business can't stay open and it's even harder for people to make an honest living. The left thinks poverty begets crime (it does to a degree obviously) but crime begets poverty much more so. Oakland right now is a perfect example of this happening.

I think you really missed the mark with your moralizing here by using San Francisco as an example.

San Francisco, a place with shitloads of tax revenue, tons of rich people who live there, who could afford to move anywhere in the country but choose San Fransisco.

You know, San Francisco, one of the tech hubs of America.

San Francisco, literally the second wealthiest city in the US.