2024 US Presidential Election Thread

[McLaren]

He still lying moron, so I wouldn't be so sure.

You said no one knows what he will do, but he's at least made some indication. Whether or not he follows through doesn't really clear your statement.

I don't. I said he needs power to be able to do something.

Nope, no you didn't. You said he needs to be in power, not have power. Big distinction there, but you're already on a track of conflating your statements.

You need to be in power to prevent anything

That were the thing until truth about Bucha became publicly available and Zelenskiy said no one would make deals with dwarf

Again, this is completely irrelevant to what you said. Peace talks aren't something as a result of Trump's current candidacy.

the information speaks for itself, but you keep bringing it up.

It does speak for itself. The issue is you're using it to make a claim that very information disproves.

Our percentage was more than double that of than any other!

You made the claim the US percentage was more than double anyone else (til' you edited in Poland), but the information that "speaks for itself" shows that's not true. What you hilariously ended up then doing is assuming that by rounding up the US percentage to 4%, it would highlight how our "percentage was more than double" anyone else. Completely ignoring that Greece at 2.22% & the UK at 2.14% already disproves that notion, you actually ended up twisting the data to show more countries spend half of what we do than before when they are also rounded up. More so, by doing that, 13 countries end up meeting that 2% threshold you want them all to hit when we round figures.

Don't blame me for exposing what an absolute mess you made out of your argument.

 

[Danoff]

Wow. Global politics and personal friendships are widely different.

They are different in many ways, but not in any that are relevant to what I was saying.

 

[Racer294]

You said no one knows what he will do, but he's at least made some indication. Whether or not he follows through doesn't really clear your statement.

Nope, no you didn't. You said he needs to be in power, not have power. Big distinction there, but you're already on a track of conflating your statements.


Again, this is completely irrelevant to what you said. Peace talks aren't something as a result of Trump's current candidacy.

It does speak for itself. The issue is you're using it to make a claim that very information disproves.


You made the claim the US percentage was more than double anyone else (til' you edited in Poland), but the information that "speaks for itself" shows that's not true. What you hilariously ended up then doing is assuming that by rounding up the US percentage to 4%, it would highlight how our "percentage was more than double" anyone else. Completely ignoring that Greece at 2.22% & the UK at 2.14% already disproves that notion, you actually ended up twisting the data to show more countries spend half of what we do than before when they are also rounded up. More so, by doing that, 13 countries end up meeting that 2% threshold you want them all to hit when we round figures.

Don't blame me for exposing what an absolute mess you made out of your argument.

What you're saying sound ludicrous. No one can edit a post? Wow you got me! But, you're also making **** up. Where did i state the US at 4%? I didn't. You made an assumption. And, do you have screenshot before my edit, like it matters.

 

[Yard_Sale]

 

[MatskiMonk]

Link?

"I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want"

 

[McLaren]

What you're saying sound ludicrous.

It's using the information you provided, lol.

No one can edit a post?

When you edited your post, you changed the claim you made. You've tried to edit it to claim, "The US spends more than all but Poland". Yes, that's true that the US has a higher percentage than everyone except Poland, but that's not what you originally claimed.

But, you're also making **** up.

They're literally your words, lol.

You can see the imbalance of funding in 2014? Some paid in almost nothing. The US paid more than all combined! Not even our continent!

Our percentage was more than double that of than any other!

Umm. Half of 4 is 2? Got it. Then <2 isn't 2.

None of this is true, as evident by your information linked.

 

[Racer294]

It's using the information you provided, lol.


When you edited your post, you changed the claim you made. You've tried to edit it to claim, "The US spends more than all but Poland". Yes, that's true that the US has a higher percentage than everyone except Poland, but that's not what you originally claimed.

They're literally your words, lol.




None of this is true, as evident by your information linked.

Dude, I can't anymore with you. You're exhaustingly obtuse. Conflating small things into mountains. Plus, you're lying about what I've said in my posts. Call me a racist again. The admins will allow it

 

[McLaren]

Plus, you're lying about what I've said in my posts.

Your posts are literally quoted for all to see. There's nothing to be conflated; you provided information & then used it to make a false statement. The rest of your post is just a repeat of nonsense that led to both of our posts being deleted.

 

[Danoff]

Why is it so hard for you see it? Our percentage was more than double that of than any other!

Dude, I can't anymore with you. You're exhaustingly obtuse. Conflating small things into mountains. Plus, you're lying about what I've said in my posts. Call me a racist again. The admins will allow it

Just admit that you were wrong and apologize. Why is that so hard?....



...I think I know the answer to that question. It's because this isn't your figure. You're discovering that an information source you got that from has been feeding you some nonsense, and you don't want to look at that.

 

[Yard_Sale]

Lawfare, man

 

[UKMikey]

Lawfare, man

Is that where you stuff the SCOTUS with conservative judges who will grant you immunity for any felony?

Let's hope he doesn't celebrate by going on a shooting spree on Fifth Avenue.

 

[Yard_Sale]

Is that where you stuff the SCOTUS with conservative judges who will grant you immunity for any felony?

Let's hope he doesn't celebrate by going on a shooting spree on Fifth Avenue.

Had Hillary won in 2016, I would have anticipated that she would stuff the SCOTUS with liberal justices, and the accompanying downriver rulings for years to come. No biggie.

And keep in mind, I live in arguably the most liberal hellhole state there is….and as a conservative, I still just look at my states politics, laws, and rulings - as a “cost of doing business” if I want to live here - Which I do


No biggie.

 

[UKMikey]

Had Hillary won in 2016, I would have anticipated that she would stuff the SCOTUS with liberal justices, and the accompanying downriver rulings for years to come. No biggie.

And keep in mind, I live in arguably the most liberal hellhole state there is….and as a conservative, I still just look at my states politics, laws, and rulings - as a “cost of doing business” if I want to live here - Which I do


No biggie.

Liberal justices who would have exempted her from the rule of law and regressed your country to the rule of monarchy? It's always fun to wander around in the hypothetical world of "what might have been".

 

[Yard_Sale]

Liberal justices who would have exempted her from the rule of law and regressed your country to the rule of monarchy? It's always fun to wander around in the hypothetical world of "what might have been".

Did I say that’s what she WOULD HAVE DONE??

Or did I say that’s what I would have “Anticipated” her to do?

Big difference between hypothetical, anticipation, and actuality.

But she didn’t get elected president, and this is where we are now.


Politics —> Policies —> Laws ~ by way of both the transitive and inverse properties.


You really need to put your stones away and learn how to play chess, champ

 

[UKMikey]

Did I say that’s what she WOULD HAVE DONE??

Or did I say that’s what I would have “Anticipated” her to do?

Big difference between hypothetical, anticipation, and actuality.

But she didn’t get elected president, and this is where we are now.


Politics —> Policies —> Laws ~ by way of both the transitive and inverse properties.


You really need to put your stones away and learn how to play chess, champ



View attachment 1369312

That appears to be quite an aggressive response to what seems like a straightforward question. Hope I didn't hit a nerve.

 

[Yard_Sale]

No nerve hit.

I don’t post here much anymore, because I don’t really care either way.










Ok, ok….


And I’ve had a bit of of Don 1942 tonight.




Ok…

A lot o’ bit of Don and Johnny.






Regardless, top of the morning to my British brothers across the puddle. Sorry if I came across aggressive 👍🏼

 

[Keef]

I just realized while reading this article about potentional Biden replacements that I was adamant before the primaries that we should stick to Biden as a symbol of solidarity in the Dem party. After all, the Republican party is full of self-hate and chaos right now, so what better way to make sure the Democratic party is rock solid than to stay the course.

Unfortunately the old man woke up with the same brain fog I've been dealing with for weeks now, and I'm in no shape to have a debate about anything either. Unfortunately there's only a few months to go and making a change now would be about the most chaotic thing the Dems could possibly do.

Do we rally behind a washed up candidate and lose, or do we really behind a new and better candidate but still lose due to fracturing?

I personally would vote for Whitmer but would be slightly annoyed that I didn't vote for her or whoever her VP would be in the primary. That fact might seem like a backstab to a lot of people. Or are most people thinking this is an opportunity worth seizing?

Edit: Not a clue who this guy is but he seems pretty harsh on the Dems at this start point late in the video:

 

[Danoff]

I personally would vote for Whitmer but would be slightly annoyed that I didn't vote for her or whoever her VP would be in the primary. That fact might seem like a backstab to a lot of people. Or are most people thinking this is an opportunity worth seizing?

If Biden is going to lose, and it's starting to seem that way, then it's time to pick someone else. I still like Biden, I'm personally willing to see him out even after a bad debate. But if he can't win it's time to move on.

I personally don't care about the future of the democratic party. I just want the US to have someone else in the presidency besides Trump.

 

[Keef]

If Biden is going to lose, and it's starting to seem that way, then it's time to pick someone else. I still like Biden, I'm personally willing to see him out even after a bad debate. But if he can't win it's time to move on.

I personally don't care about the future of the democratic party. I just want the US to have someone else in the presidency besides Trump.

See, I actually never liked Biden, I think he's always been too bland although I respect the level-headed attitude and agreeable policies. I think it's clear than Sanders was the better choice. That agreeableness is the only reason I kept caring. Sounds like we agree that the only goal is really to defeat Trump.

This may turn out to be one of the biggest gaffes in American political history. That said, I'm here on the internet right now, willing to watch a Whitmer campaign video. Publish the damn thing, let's get the ball rolling.

 

[Danoff]

This may turn out to be one of the biggest gaffes in American political history.

Biden has one huge weak spot (age) and a few smaller weak spots with voters (Israel, Inflation, Immigration). He basically took his biggest weakness and put a magnifying glass on it at the last debate. If we stick with him despite the obvious problems (lack of popularity) it might be a world history level bone-headed move.

The alternative I see is nominating a stronger VP and just relying on that person to assuage age concerns. Kamala isn't doing that job.

 

[Savolainen83]

Fun fact: in finnish, Kamala means horrible.

 

[McLaren]

Edit: Not a clue who this guy is but he seems pretty harsh on the Dems at this start point late in the video:

Of course, he is. It's a right-wing channel living off specific clips & bait video titles. "Woke person gets DESTROYED!". "Left person EXPOSED". "Person A OBLITERATES Person B".

It's trash "media" & you'd do yourself a better service hearing from Jon Stewart himself.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

The New York Times has been pushing stories that seemed to be designed to pressure Biden into dropping out. I think we're venturing into an odd time....

Latest examples:

Biden Told Ally That He Is Weighing Whether to Continue in the Race
Biden’s Lapses Are Said to Be Increasingly Common and Worrisome

I don't think anyone would question that the NYT is part of the left/liberal apparatus, unofficially. Until the debate, it seemed cagey around it's support of Biden, but these two articles seemed designed to force Biden out.

 

[Liquid]

In favour of whom?

 

[novcze]

In favour of Literally Anybody Else

 

[Duke]

See, I actually never liked Biden, I think he's always been too bland although I respect the level-headed attitude and agreeable policies.

Speaking as someone who has lived most of my life in the Delaware area, I have definitely NEVER liked Biden. I don't find him likeable; I find him an idiot, and a policy-making nightmare.

Jimmy Carter was bland, but there was undeniable intelligence lurking in there. Biden has no sizzle but no steak, either.

The best thing you can say about Biden is that, despite being a doddering idiot with a career full of terrible lawmaking behind him, he's STILL a better president than Trump.

I do find it kind of funny that the media's self-imposed embargo against talking about the elephant in Biden's room seems to be evaporating after the debate.

 

[Famine]

I do find it kind of funny that the media's self-imposed embargo against talking about the elephant in Biden's room seems to be evaporating after the debate.

An ironic creature, in this case.

 

[inCloud]

Sanders

LOL

I do find it kind of funny that the media's self-imposed embargo against talking about the elephant in Biden's room seems to be evaporating after the debate.

Its called lying to you audience.

 

[Joey D]

In favour of whom?

Gretchen Whitmer, the governor of Michigan, is a name that's being thrown around a whole bunch.

I just hope the Democrats don't do something stupid and try to replace Biden with Harris because that would be disastrous.

 

[Dennisch]

When was the last time that the Democrats made a proper strategic decision? After Obama that is.

They're going to **** it up and hand the special orange one a second term.