Trump is my favourite comedian of the year already (13 Viewers)

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
It was rejected at the election BSB. Harris and Walz are progressives and not only did they lose the presidential vote, they lost the popular vote, the senate and the house. As the FT article/mayer were saying the democrats have tried to move further left and it hasn’t gone well. The U.S. is a centre right, conservative (small c) country
Here is where we’re just going to have to disagree. When polled, the US electorate supports the progressive position on most policies, even healthcare. They just haven’t ever been offered them in a presidential election since the time of FDR and LBJ.

Worth looking at not just polling on these issues but also where they have been directly balloted upon at a state level. For example on the same day Florida voted for Trump by double digits, it also voted in favour of reversing the state’s abortion law changes.

The last point is that the Democrats typically run the economy better than Republicans, but the public will tend to believe the opposite. This election spelt that out clearly. Jon Stewart puts it better than I can:

 
Last edited:

The Philosopher

Well-Known Member
My answer to those arguments would have been to nominate Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020. The American left has not been represented in the last 3 cycles but in this current one, Biden had still done far better than Trump on the metrics Bill Maher and others claim to be most important.

What has really been rejected in these elections has been tweak around the edges centrism. Trump in 2016 argued against foreign wars, for single payer healthcare(!), protecting jobs etc etc. Hillary really did just run on her identity and appeared entitled and in support of the status quo. I could see very clearly how he had a route to winning that time.

Nancy Pelosi has blamed Biden for not standing down, but the truth is a centrist would most likely still have been nominated anyway with a similar result. A Tim Walz style progressive with a record in government should be the next nominee in my view, with a platform centred around universal healthcare.
Walz?

You would have thought that they would have done a bit of background to make sure he didn’t have some skeleton in his closet, like, lie about military service.

The Dem selection process:

“Right, we’ve gone for a woman of colour so all the diversity boxes are checked. Need to try to get some of the undecided and Trump-lite votes in. Let’s get a guy in who lies about military service and who’s family support Trump.” I mean, that type of thinking doesn’t promote confidence, does it?
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Walz?

You would have thought that they would have done a bit of background to make sure he didn’t have some skeleton in his closet, like, lie about military service.

The Dem selection process:

“Right, we’ve gone for a woman of colour so all the diversity boxes are checked. Need to try to get some of the undecided and Trump-lite votes in. Let’s get a guy in who lies about military service and who’s family support Trump.” I mean, that type of thinking doesn’t promote confidence, does it?
The highest ‘favourability’ rating of the 4 nominees and who passed free school meals for kids. Yeah, what a dick he is.

Should have picked the man who called Trump the American Hitler…
 

The Philosopher

Well-Known Member
The highest ‘favourability’ rating of the 4 nominees and who passed free school meals for kids. Yeah, what a dick he is.

Should have picked the man who called Trump the American Hitler…
OMG man, Walz was a disaster.

Democrat think tank: “Walz is looking like a poor pick with his lying and whatnot. I know, let’s go and shoot some animals”

Clueless.

Yes, my initial thoughts about the Republican pick was that they had dropped the ball. Turns out Vance resonated with the women voters and “bro” voters alike.
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
OMG man, Walz was a disaster.

Democrat think tank: “Walz is looking like a poor pick with his lying and whatnot. I know, let’s go and shoot some animals”

Clueless.

Yes, my initial thoughts about the Republican pick was that they had dropped the ball. Turns out Vance resonated with the women voters and “bro” voters alike.
You want to call out someone for being a liar when Trump is in the contest?
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Pay attention man, I was calling out the Dem’s for lack of thought and vetting.

The Dem strategy was to continually attack Trump. The weak of mind just constantly calling him a “liar”.

It backfired.
Popular governor
Long list of good achievements
High likeability

It was a good pick, but VP picks don't really matter when it comes to elections. No vetting at all was done of JD 'How do I buy doughnuts?' Vance, to be clear. He was picked because Tucker and Elon asked Trump to do it.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Pay attention man, I was calling out the Dem’s for lack of thought and vetting.

The Dem strategy was to continually attack Trump. The weak of mind just constantly calling him a “liar”.

It backfired.
Well, I guess they mainly did that because he's a liar.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Getting a leftist to have the pragmatism to see another viewpoint?

Rare.

When they do, the remaining on the left don’t like it.

For example:

Everyone on this photo used to be a Democrat supporter.


View attachment 39545
So what is this 'pragmatism' from the left?

Saying that immigration does put a strain on services and so we need to better manage the influx and get people processed more quickly, ideally with centres in countries they travel from?
Or agreeing there is a problem with crime and drugs, so let's get to the root of the problem, improve mental health services to prevent that becoming a crime and treating low level offenders with rehabilitation and opportunity so the problem doesn't escalate?

Or is pragmatism in your eyes agreeing with everything the right says, not matter how batshit crazy it is?
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
So in order to carry out this deportation of tens of millions of people, Trump is prepared to override the states’ rights he famously defended by denying women reproductive healthcare. The plan would be to summon national guard units from Republican states and send them into Democratic ones to enforce Trump’s will.

Still not a fascist though. Definitely not.

 

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
So in order to carry out this deportation of tens of millions of people, Trump is prepared to override the states’ rights he famously defended by denying women reproductive healthcare. The plan would be to summon national guard units from Republican states and send them into Democratic ones to enforce Trump’s will.

Still not a fascist though. Definitely not.

It won’t happen I can’t believe more than 30% of those voting for him believed it will
 

Como

Well-Known Member
The Atlantic is very progressive and the take over by the Progs was the main issue not the left.

As is often the case terms in American politics mean the opposite to their normal usage
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
The Atlantic is very progressive and the take over by the Progs was the main issue not the left.

As is often the case terms in American politics mean the opposite to their normal usage
So it quotes Miller saying something that Trump’s ‘deportation czar’ has now confirmed. Still it says something inconvenient so you go after the source rather than the content.

Democratic run states will not want this and Trump will use other states’ national guard to force it on them.
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
OMG man, Walz was a disaster.

Democrat think tank: “Walz is looking like a poor pick with his lying and whatnot. I know, let’s go and shoot some animals”

Clueless.

Yes, my initial thoughts about the Republican pick was that they had dropped the ball. Turns out Vance resonated with the women voters and “bro” voters alike.

Have you tried to get elected anywhere previously? If so, how did it go?
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Have you tried to get elected anywhere previously? If so, how did it go?

Katy Perry Wow GIF
 

The Philosopher

Well-Known Member
Have you tried to get elected anywhere previously? If so, how did it go?
Yes I have.

Runner up in a couple of Westminster elections, resurrected the SDP, wrote their manifesto and the policies that they now stand on and then was asked to join the governing Tory party. Opted not to stand when a / winnable safe seat in 2019 was available. (Thats how it works, it’s very rare you’re offered a winnable seat first or second time). I declined because I had a young family.

I was elected to Chair the regional Conservative Party federation in 2022 and am / was involved on Gov advisory boards / policy directives from 2017-2024.

So, no, I didn’t achieve being elected to Westminster at a time it might have worked for me. I may stand again in 2029 - not decided yet.

If your question was an immature dig, then that’s rather sad.

Clearly your political CV extends beyond being a rather boring keyboard warrior; let’s have it…..
 

tisza

Well-Known Member
So it quotes Miller saying something that Trump’s ‘deportation czar’ has now confirmed. Still it says something inconvenient so you go after the source rather than the content.

Democratic run states will not want this and Trump will use other states’ national guard to force it on them.
Texas and Florida account for a signicant % of illegals so they will be "easy" to start with. Wouldn't be surprised if the plan is to "encourage" illegals to flee to Democratic states and let them deal with the problem. New York already being complaining about their public services being overloaded by the influx of illegals shipped there by Republican states. Also Trump will probably cut off federal funding to sanctuary cities like he did last time.
 

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
Yes I have.

Runner up in a couple of Westminster elections, resurrected the SDP, wrote their manifesto and the policies that they now stand on and then was asked to join the governing Tory party. Opted not to stand when a / winnable safe seat in 2019 was available. (Thats how it works, it’s very rare you’re offered a winnable seat first or second time). I declined because I had a young family.

I was elected to Chair the regional Conservative Party federation in 2022 and am / was involved on Gov advisory boards / policy directives from 2017-2024.

So, no, I didn’t achieve being elected to Westminster at a time it might have worked for me. I may stand again in 2029 - not decided yet.

If your question was an immature dig, then that’s rather sad.

Clearly your political CV extends beyond being a rather boring keyboard warrior; let’s have it…..
Reform in 2029? Genuinely interested
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Texas and Florida account for a signicant % of illegals so they will be "easy" to start with. Wouldn't be surprised if the plan is to "encourage" illegals to flee to Democratic states and let them deal with the problem. New York already being complaining about their public services being overloaded by the influx of illegals shipped there by Republican states. Also Trump will probably cut off federal funding to sanctuary cities like he did last time.
‘Illegals’? How about calling them people for a start
 

The Philosopher

Well-Known Member
Reform in 2029? Genuinely interested
Nope. Staying with Conservatives for now.

The system doesn’t favour outsider parties and Reform isn’t structurally sound; it becomes infiltrated by bad actors which will halt progress. Besides, Tories and Labour will simply adapt Reform / Lib / Green positions should they need and nullify that way. See Boris 2019 for details.
 

The Philosopher

Well-Known Member
‘Illegals’? How about calling them people for a start
They are of course people.

But they are illegal migrants or immigrants if they have not been granted refugee or owbdi status.

Someone comes into your home uninvited and without just cause then they are not a resident. They may be a guest should you choose but they are not a resident.

The leftist deception of saying things like “Trump will round upmigrants” is a deliberate stirring of disinformation.

There are legal immigrants, who have often worked hard to go through the right channels, been background checked or may even have gotten married to a US citizen. These are immigrants. Illegal immigrants who have no right to be in the US have (unless fleeing persecution) are not legal immigrants.

“Trump will round up migrants” is the type of false inflammatory language that creates division in society.

“Migrants”

 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Yes I have.

Runner up in a couple of Westminster elections, resurrected the SDP, wrote their manifesto and the policies that they now stand on and then was asked to join the governing Tory party. Opted not to stand when a / winnable safe seat in 2019 was available. (Thats how it works, it’s very rare you’re offered a winnable seat first or second time). I declined because I had a young family.

I was elected to Chair the regional Conservative Party federation in 2022 and am / was involved on Gov advisory boards / policy directives from 2017-2024.

So, no, I didn’t achieve being elected to Westminster at a time it might have worked for me. I may stand again in 2029 - not decided yet.

If your question was an immature dig, then that’s rather sad.

Clearly your political CV extends beyond being a rather boring keyboard warrior; let’s have it…..

No, I am a keyboard warrior and know my limitations, you should try it
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
They are of course people.

But they are illegal migrants or immigrants if they have not been granted refugee or owbdi status.

Someone comes into your home uninvited and without just cause then they are not a resident. They may be a guest should you choose but they are not a resident.

The leftist deception of saying things like “Trump will round upmigrants” is a deliberate stirring of disinformation.

There are legal immigrants, who have often worked hard to go through the right channels, been background checked or may even have gotten married to a US citizen. These are immigrants. Illegal immigrants who have no right to be in the US have (unless fleeing persecution) are not legal immigrants.

“Trump will round up migrants” is the type of false inflammatory language that creates division in society.

“Migrants”

To be clear, Trump has expressed a willingness to deport legal as well as illegal immigrants. The Haitians in Ohio he falsely accused of eating cats and dogs to be one such example.

More to the point, illegal immigrants commit crime at a measurably lower rate than ‘home’ born US citizens and perform much low paid work that the country needs but its people do not do. The country would be better off granting a path to citizenship instead of rounding them up.

You don’t like the term ‘rounding them up’? Maybe stop supporting the guy who wants to do just that.
 

Como

Well-Known Member
Seems many of the Haitians in Springfield are moving.

Begs the question on what basis they immigrated.

Nobody knows what the true crime figures are, none knows how many illegals there are, they are after all undocumented.

Reminds me of a Progressive city that downgraded charges to Agricultural Trespass as that would not be sufficient to draw ICE attention, of course quite how that occurred was a mystery as this city had no Agricultural land.
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Seems many of the Haitians in Springfield are moving.

Begs the question on what basis they immigrated.

Nobody knows what the true crime figures are, none knows how many illegals there are, they are after all undocumented.

Reminds me of a Progressive city that downgraded charges to Agricultural Trespass as that would not be sufficient to draw ICE attention, of course quite how that occurred was a mystery as this city had no Agricultural land.
You talk as though we don’t know why they immigrated. Daddy Trump tells you they eat pets so you believe it I guess.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Yes I have.

Runner up in a couple of Westminster elections, resurrected the SDP, wrote their manifesto and the policies that they now stand on and then was asked to join the governing Tory party. Opted not to stand when a / winnable safe seat in 2019 was available. (Thats how it works, it’s very rare you’re offered a winnable seat first or second time). I declined because I had a young family.

I was elected to Chair the regional Conservative Party federation in 2022 and am / was involved on Gov advisory boards / policy directives from 2017-2024.

So, no, I didn’t achieve being elected to Westminster at a time it might have worked for me. I may stand again in 2029 - not decided yet.

If your question was an immature dig, then that’s rather sad.

Clearly your political CV extends beyond being a rather boring keyboard warrior; let’s have it…..
So you would have been part of the Boris Batshit intake? Makes sense.

And being involved in Tory policy 2017-2024 - not exactly something to be proud of.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top