Trump just lost the election

[Phoenix_person]

5 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Agree totally, and your side should open champagne because of Roe was reversed. It’ll bring your side out in droves. 

Yep. Roe, J6, the tanked border bill. Trump gave the Dems all the ammo they need. All that was left was for them to get someone who can get the messaging out coherently.

[LDSGator]

1 minute ago, Phoenix_person said:

Yep. Roe, J6, the tanked border bill. Trump gave the Dems all the ammo they need. All that was left was for them to get someone who can get the messaging out coherently.

Exactly. And that, my friend, is why if you guys lose this after being handed this election on silver platter, you’ll never hear the end of it from me.   

[The Folk Prophet]

48 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

We’ll see. Eventually if the GOP gets shellacked in 2024 there will be no other choice. Or they can continue to lose. Whatever works.  

You're under the impression that Republicans were winning prior to Trump?

Even if you take the Republican candidate "wins", they sure as heck haven't been winning on policy or conservative values. They've lost, and lost, and lost and lost. Republicans talk a lot...and then do little to nothing...except increase budgets and allow the culture to slide further to the left.

The reality is, sadly, that the country is slowly sliding into decline. And returning to the way it was before Trump doesn't change that at all. The decline will continue.

But...to be fair...it doesn't really matter. If the Trump-esqe type politics continue...we're doomed. If we return to "normal" Republicans running...we're doomed. And, of course, if the Democrats win anything ever...we're doomed.

Yeah... I know... I've become a doomsayer.

Because.... we're doomed. Politically speaking. The only hope, (and, blessedly, the sure hope), is in Christ.

Until Christ returns, things will continue to get worse. Trump or no Trump.

That being said.... the Republicans aren't returning to normal. And neither are the Democrats (who, in my opinion, have gone WAY further astray from what they once were than the MAGA influence had gone from what Republicans were).

FWIW...if you care about my opinion, which of course, no one does, nor should they...but.... in my opinion.... As soon as Kamala debates Trump.... Well...it's going to be as bad for her as it was for Biden. She's less able to speak (off the cuff) than he was. And that's saying something.

Edited August 23, 2024 by The Folk Prophet

[LDSGator]

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

if you care about my opinion,

Actually I do care about your opinion, and you should care about mine. Why are we here if we don’t care what others think? Doesn’t that make what we say totally irrelevant? Are we just speaking to hear ourselves talk?

 

I never understood those who say they don’t care what others think. First off you do. We all do. Second, those who say they don’t care what others think usually cry and whine when others say they don’t care what they think! 

Edited August 23, 2024 by LDSGator

[pam]

On 8/17/2024 at 1:02 PM, Phoenix_person said:

The obsession over crowd size continues. It didn't seem to hurt Joe 4 years ago.

4 years ago we were also in the middle of COVID and large gatherings couldn't happen like they can now.

[The Folk Prophet]

4 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Actually I do care about your opinion, and you should care about mine. Why are we here if we don’t care what others think? Doesn’t that make what we say totally irrelevant? Are we just speaking to hear ourselves talk?

 

I never understood those who say they don’t care what others think. First off you do. We all do. Second, those who say they don’t care what others think usually cry and whine when others say they don’t care what they think! 

To be fair, I mean no one should care about my opinion on whether Trump or Kamala would win. Not that no one should care about any of my opinions.

[Phoenix_person]

34 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You're under the impression that Republicans were winning prior to Trump?

Even if you take the Republican candidate "wins", they sure as heck haven't been winning on policy or conservative values. They've lost, and lost, and lost and lost. Republicans talk a lot...and then do little to nothing...except increase budgets and allow the culture to slide further to the left.

The reality is, sadly, that the country is slowly sliding into decline. And returning to the way it was before Trump doesn't change that at all. The decline will continue.

But...to be fair...it doesn't really matter. If the Trump-esqe type politics continue...we're doomed. If we return to "normal" Republicans running...we're doomed. And, of course, if the Democrats win anything ever...we're doomed.

We'll see in November where rank-and-file Republicans land. As it stands, it seems pretty unprecedented that the DNC had THREE current Republicans speak at their convention (by my count, I didn't watch night 1). There's "Republicans for Harris" and "Republicans against Trump" movements in the GOP. Democrats spent the past few days talking about J6, the border bill that Trump killed, and the rights of Ukraine and Israel to defend themselves, because they know that's how they win with swing voters and disenfranchised Republicans. 2016 was the first election in my lifetime that my parents (who live in an extremely red PA county) didn't vote for a Republican. They both voted for Gary Johnson in '16 and Biden in '20. I think there's definitely going to be an effort to return the GOP to people like Mitt Romney, Adam Kinzinger, and Liz Cheney. To be clear, I don't think it'll work. MAGA has grown in power too much, and they've demonstrated a willingness to use violence to protect their power. If that's the future of your party, then either your party is doomed or our Republic is.

34 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

the Republicans aren't returning to normal. And neither are the Democrats (who, in my opinion, have gone WAY further astray from what they once were than the MAGA influence had gone from what Republicans were).

The Democrats I grew up with were basically Republican Lite in a lot of ways. They've moved left with their voting base, just as the GOP has moved further right alongside theirs (funny how that democracy thing works, isn't it?). 

34 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

As soon as Kamala debates Trump.... Well...it's going to be as bad for her as it was for Biden. She's less able to speak (off the cuff) than he was. And that's saying something.

She did fine against Pence. And to his credit, Pence held his own against her pretty well. All she has to do against Trump is let him speak.

https://youtu.be/_80d95hMjC4?si=urBFX4LA8soyoovh

[LDSGator]

8 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

The Democrats I grew up with were basically Republican Lite in a lot of ways.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard someone call the republicans “democrats lite”. 

[Phoenix_person]

1 minute ago, LDSGator said:

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard someone call the republicans “democrats lite”. 

There was a time when you could say either one and not be wrong.

[LDSGator]

2 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

There was a time when you could say either one and not be wrong.

Yup. 

[mirkwood]

24 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

There's "Republicans for Harris" and "Republicans against Trump" movements in the GOP. D

Another difference between the parties.  Republicans when upset with their candidate will do things like this, vote for other candidates, etc.  

 

The Dems don't, they just circle the wagons around whoever the "choice" is.

[Phoenix_person]

57 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

The Dems don't, they just circle the wagons around whoever the "choice" is.

Or vote for Jill Stein.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

If that's the future of your party, then either your party is doomed or our Republic is.

Please don't call it my party.

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You're under the impression that Republicans were winning prior to Trump?

Even if you take the Republican candidate "wins", they sure as heck haven't been winning on policy or conservative values. They've lost, and lost, and lost and lost. Republicans talk a lot...and then do little to nothing...except increase budgets and allow the culture to slide further to the left.

The reality is, sadly, that the country is slowly sliding into decline. And returning to the way it was before Trump doesn't change that at all. The decline will continue.

But...to be fair...it doesn't really matter. If the Trump-esqe type politics continue...we're doomed. If we return to "normal" Republicans running...we're doomed. And, of course, if the Democrats win anything ever...we're doomed.

Yeah... I know... I've become a doomsayer.

Because.... we're doomed. Politically speaking. The only hope, (and, blessedly, the sure hope), is in Christ.

Until Christ returns, things will continue to get worse. Trump or no Trump.

That being said.... the Republicans aren't returning to normal. And neither are the Democrats (who, in my opinion, have gone WAY further astray from what they once were than the MAGA influence had gone from what Republicans were).

FWIW...if you care about my opinion, which of course, no one does, nor should they...but.... in my opinion.... As soon as Kamala debates Trump.... Well...it's going to be as bad for her as it was for Biden. She's less able to speak (off the cuff) than he was. And that's saying something.

I’m not saying there’s no value to your comment—RINOS and falling in love with power and just plain getting bogged down, have been inherent struggles for the GOP.

But . . . I don’t think Trump fundamentally brought about a sea change in which Republicans started winning.  I don’t think Obama, as the first black Dem nominee, was beatable; so I don’t really blame McCain or Romney for those losses.  By contrast I think nearly any mainstream GOP nominee could have beaten Hillary in 2016.  When it came to working with the Republican-led 115th Congress to advance conservative legislation, Trump’s White House was shockingly impotent.  The “victories” at the SCOTUS level come primarily from Mitch McConnell (as much a “swamp thing” as anyone Trump has condemned) bottling up Merrick Garland’s confirmation at the end of Obama’s administration.  

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

She did fine against Pence. And to his credit, Pence held his own against her pretty well. All she has to do against Trump is let him speak.

https://youtu.be/_80d95hMjC4?si=urBFX4LA8soyoovh

My recollection of that is that Pence made a lot of points and policy arguments with which Harris mostly chose not to disengage, instead resorting to a combination of cackling or false accusations; and then a fly landed in Pence’s hair on-camera, and all we ever heard from the press after that was “Even insects know Pence is full of crap.  SQUEEEEEE!!!”

Edited August 24, 2024 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

9 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don’t think Trump fundamentally brought about a sea change in which Republicans started winning.

I did not say this. 

[Suzie]

11 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Source?

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6360857592112

Starts at 1:00.

[Carborendum]

On 8/23/2024 at 3:59 PM, Phoenix_person said:

Here's the full reaction from Kamala's speech, if you're interested. His campaign has been posting from his Twitter account ever since Biden dropped out. I'd bet real money that they changed the password and won't give him the new one. They don't want his late night tantrums to leave containment.

...

He also said (it's in the clip above) that there was broad bipartisan support for getting rid of Roe. Suuuuure, buddy.

1. I don't see anything in that context to indicate that he wasn't simply exaggerating.

2. Liberals tend not to understand what "getting rid of Roe" means.  It doesn't mean abortion is to be banned all across the country in all cases.  It simply means that it is a controversial enough issue that we shouldn't have a one-size-fits-all solution.  It says

Quote

"We don't know what the right solution is in all cases.  So, we'll let people choose which state seems to come up with the set of rules that they most agree with."

And, yes, this does have broad support across the country.  Only the activists and die-hards don't understand this principle.

[Carborendum]

On 8/23/2024 at 8:46 PM, Suzie said:

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6360857592112

Starts at 1:00.

Thank you.

I can't know what he was talking about there.  But it could be that he was talking about a specific stat that he failed to add all the qualifiers for because he was in a rushed interview.

Quote

In 2021, about 70% of older adults in poverty in the United States lived in households that received Social Security, compared to 91% of those not in poverty. 

 -- Census Bureau

Edited August 25, 2024 by Carborendum

[NeuroTypical]

Coherent messaging:

 

[askandanswer]

US politics is watched closely in Australia. (We need to keep an eye on you so that we can be ready to bail you out of your next war  ) 

This comes from an article by the government owned national broadcaster which is meant to be politically neutral but which has swung quite a bit to the left in recent years. I was interested to note the size of the change in the pro Democrat vote from before Biden's withdrawal in July to after his withdrawal in August. The Trump vote was largely unaffected.  

The Coalition are broadly comparable with what the Republican party used to be like, the Labor party is the Australian equivalent of the Democrats, One Nation resembles Trumpism and the Greens here are pretty similar to the Greens in the US. When the Australian vote is broken down by party allegiance we get:

 

 

 

 

Edited August 26, 2024 by askandanswer

[LDSGator]

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

US politics is watched closely in Australia. (We need to keep an eye on you so that we can be ready to bail you out of your next war

 

[JohnsonJones]

I've only read the first few posts.

After reading what Trump said, I do not understand why people are so offended by it.

I am a Veteran, and from my interpretation of Trump, I would actually agree with him.

It is FAR better to have an award you can appreciate and enjoy, than one you cannot.

From what I see he was saying, most people who get the Medal of Honor are either dead (so you aren't going to appreciate it, your family may, but you won't be) or wounded rather badly (which may also mean you don't enjoy life as much and may not enjoy things as well...including the medal of Honor).

On the otherhand, most who get the Medal of Freedom are going to be able to enjoy it and the rewards of receiving it. 

In that light, yes, I agree, I'd rather get the Medal of Freedom than the Medal of Honor.

I'd argue that in regards to SERVICE to our nation, the Medal of Honor outshines the Medal of Freedom by a great amount, but as far as enjoying receiving it...

In general, it's probably going to be better to be someone getting the Medal of Freedom than the Medal of Honor. 

[Carborendum]

On 8/20/2024 at 4:43 PM, Phoenix_person said:

It's possible to kill someone in a building without destroying the entire building. More difficult, sure, but possible. I find it hard to believe that Mossad doesn't have the resources to conduct covert strikes in their own backyard.

It would be nice if war were clean.  But it never is.

For nations with a larger population, the economics of warfare make that a viable option.  But Israel would have been snuffed out already if they pursued that strategy.  Even for a larger nation (like the US) we'd prefer to send drones in rather than actual human beings.

On 8/20/2024 at 4:43 PM, Phoenix_person said:

Yes. Executing a police raid is a slightly different operation in comparison to launching a missile strike.

Exigent circumstances.  While there are many applications, the idea here is that if a cop is chasing a criminal, and he runs into his own home, then he can just cry "Hey, 4th amendment! You can't come in here! Neener neener."

Whatever the operation, that notion, that sense, that attitude is exactly what you're advocating.  No, they can't get away with that, nor should they.

On 8/20/2024 at 4:43 PM, Phoenix_person said:

Again, that's not a reason to not advocate for their survival, especially for those who call themselves "Christian". I understand that there are Christian reasons to support Israel too. The one constant truth about this conflict is that it has never been morally black-and-white. With that being the case, my morality dictates that I advocate for the preservation of human life as much as possible. That is why I strongly condemn both the attacks by Hamas and the scope of Israel's military response. 

I've never once heard any liberal condemn Hamas before (in any way shape or form).  So, thank you for making that admission.

I've never heard any Palestinian protester condemn the attacks of Oct 7th.  1200 civilians killed. 250 kidnapped.  Multiple stories from those released or rescued indicate that most  of the women were being raped during captivity.

On 8/20/2024 at 4:43 PM, Phoenix_person said:

Palestinians being out-gunned is what led to their mass displacement in the first place. 

Yes.  This is historical proof that Israel is capable of exercising restraint and living in peace with the Palestinians.

On 8/20/2024 at 4:43 PM, Phoenix_person said:

Which is why disarmament isn't what's being requested, it's a cease-fire.

I can't tell if you meant to do this.  But if you did, you did so as carefully as possible.  This is a roundabout way of saying, "Yes, if they were completely disarmed, they'd be wiped out."

I've never heard a leftist admit to that.  I actually heard a Democrat friend of mine insist that it was the other way around. So, again, thank you for admitting that.

Now that you've admitted to both those points, I'd ask

Who is more reasonable?  The party capable of exercising restraint when they have the clear upper hand?  Or the ones who would commit genocide if they had their way?

On 8/20/2024 at 4:43 PM, Phoenix_person said:

Not bombs, clearly. In all honesty, I don't know. Anyone who thinks they have an answer other than "the eradication of the Palestinian people" is lying.

War is either justified or unjustified.  While people make a judgment based on "blame", I'd offer the following: 

• It is the last most desparate attempt to seek peaceful coexistence. 
• If the goal is eradication, it is unjustified.  If the goal is peaceful coexistence, it is justified.

Yes, there are all kinds of loopholes and other arguments and considerations.  But for this scenario, that is what I see when determining which side to support.  One side wants peace.  The other wants eradication.  Just who was invading whom in both those cases?

• Israel's citizens were civilians living IN Israel when they were kidnapped or killed or both.
• Palestinian prisoners were in the midst of commiting terrorism IN ISRAEL when they were imprisoned.  Yet they want three palestinians returned for every one Israeli captive.

On 8/20/2024 at 4:43 PM, Phoenix_person said:

There's no easy solution, other than total military dominance, and the amount of death that that would require should be out of the question, just as it should have been out of the question in 1945.

Agreed.

The fact that none of us knows the answer is why we have purpetual war in the region.  In the end, war is the last ditch effort at trying to establish peace.  When all other efforts fail, we resort to war.  Mankind has not found another way in all the milennia of human existence.  That should not be a surprise.

War is supposed to be evil.  It is supposed to be messy. It is supposed to be something to avoid.  That's what makes it the LAST option.

Israel has clearly sought diplomatic solutions throughout the past 80 years.  They have give humanitarian efforts to Palestine to curry favor.  Palestine has repeatedly rejected their diplomacy and turned their humanitarian efforts into weapons of war (e.g. the pipes for water supplied being turned into terrorist tunnels).

What efforts has Palestine ever offered TO ISRAEL that would indicate that they want peaceful CO-existence?  All I've heard is "From the river to the sea!"  (which means genocide).

On 8/20/2024 at 4:43 PM, Phoenix_person said:

Germany is an interesting example. They were occupied for 44 years by two very different occupiers. The stark contrast was made clear early on by the Berlin Blockade, to which the US responded with airdrops of food and medicine. Yeah, I can see why the Germans didn't have beef with us.

Yes.  Absolutely.

On 8/20/2024 at 4:43 PM, Phoenix_person said:

Japan had an empire, and we destroyed it. Their culture is very pragmatic. They made the most of what we left for them and flourished. We best them, but they refused to stay beaten, in their own way.

It was a lot more than that.  It is important to note that during wartime, all sides tend to ramp up propaganda toa Spinal Tap 11.  The Japanese had posters of the "giant American monsters" sporting faces of Frankenstein's monster.  They made us inhuman in their eyes.

A story was told of an American soldier who gave a chocolate bar to a Japanese child to calm his nerves.  That child eventually grew to be a major international businessman who wanted to do business in the US.

The US made tremendous efforts to rebuild Japan so they would not have to struggle through poverty to get back to peace.

On 8/20/2024 at 4:43 PM, Phoenix_person said:

The Middle East has been a chessboard for Western powers for centuries. Displacing 700,000 Palestinians to create an Israeli state was a huge slap in the face to the Arab world. Over a million Palestinians are still living in refugee camps to this day, most lacking the means to start over elsewhere. This affects not only Palestinians, but the people and governments of their Arab neighbors as well. Germany and Japan don't have that problem.

The same could be said of dozens of other nations.  But instead of holding generational vengance and hostility, those other nations taught their children to rebuild and make something of themselves.  And they did so within a single generation.  Korea did so, beginning from the most impoverished conditions prior to the war.  Now they are an economy that almost rivals the UK (GDP per capita).

Developed nations (including Israel) have made tremendous efforts to offer Palestine aid to build up their nation and to make something of themselves.  But instead of taking advantage of that and building a nation, they've continued to instill a sense of hatred upon each successive generation.

All other nations gave up, forgave, and rebuilt.  Palestine doesn't do that.  Why?

Palestine has a bad reputation even among other Muslim nations.  Early on, they were received with open arms into other Muslim nations.  But, the Muslim nations didn't want them because of the havoc they caused in Muslim nations.

Other Muslim nations are able to peacefully coexist.  But Palestine can't.  Why?

Jews OTOH, have lived without a country for 2000 years.  Yet, everywhere they go, they find success in all they do.  They build a life for their families.  They work within the system. 

Palestine?

Edited August 26, 2024 by Carborendum

[NeuroTypical]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

The US made tremendous efforts to rebuild Japan so they would not have to struggle through poverty to get back to peace.

I'm reminded that on O6, tens of thousands of Palestinians did their usual daily commute into Israel for their jobs.  I read an article about the SodaStream company, based in Israel, and like a ~30% Palestinian workforce.   Then O7 happened, and the Israeli workers showed up and started mourning their friends and co-workers  who were now going to have a very bad time because of the actions of their government.