2024 Presidential Election thread

[Motown Bombers]

Hillary Clinton will be 77 years old. We have to elect inexperienced people because they are young because of vibes or some ****. 

[ewsieg]

21 hours ago, Motor City Sonics said:

So Robert Kraft ran an anti-hate ad during the Super Bowl? 

Hey, Bob,  you've had plenty of chances to distant yourself from the one man stirring up the hate.   Too late now.

You can take your ad and stick it up your arse, Bob.          You saw Nazis in Charlottesville back in 2017.    You still supported Trump in 2020.   Shut the f up, Bob.   Your words mean nothing now.  You helped create that monster.  Your greed got in front of your common sense.   Like your life is such a slog under Democrats.  Okay, Bob. 

 

I'm disappointed in a lot more folks than just Kraft, but if they are willing to come out now against Trump, i'll gladly accept them for this fight.  After Trump loses, then kick him back out.

[Mr.TaterSalad]

1 hour ago, 1776 said:

I have never ever been a Hillary Clinton fan, ever. But…I’d vote for her in a heartbeat over this clown show that’s playing out now. Are you reading this Hillary? I’m sure I’m not alone. 

We could have had a Harvard Law Professor and women who was a fierce legal advocate for consumers and consumer protections for President but her slogan was too preachy and she was seen as too smart. She also once said she was like 1/50th Native American or some ****. Instead we got Biden over Warren and here we sit. Biden it is. Sigh!

[Motown Bombers]

15 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

We could have had a Harvard Law Professor and women who was a fierce legal advocate for consumers and consumer protections for President but her slogan was too preachy and she was seen as too smart. She also once said she was like 1/50th Native American or some ****. Instead we got Biden over Warren and here we sit. Biden it is. Sigh!

And Biden has been the most progressive president since Lyndon Johnson while Elizabeth Warren is coming up with great ideas such as opening abortion clinics in rural federal parks and thinking Biden has the magic ability to just erase all student debt despite what the Supreme Court says. She's also going to be 75. I guess that's what we mean when we mean younger. 

[Motown Bombers]

 

[CMRivdogs]

Playing the old I like Biden game to get rubes to vote for Trump...

Vlad's slipping

Driving the news: The Russian president was asked who was "better for us" between Biden and Trump during an interview broadcast Wednesday on Rossiya 1 TV.

"[Biden] is a more experienced, predictable person. He is a politician of the old school," Putin said. "But we will work with any leader of the United States, who is trusted by the American people."

Representatives for Biden and Trump did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment.

[Motor City Sonics]

On 2/13/2024 at 12:55 PM, ewsieg said:

I'm disappointed in a lot more folks than just Kraft, but if they are willing to come out now against Trump, i'll gladly accept them for this fight.  After Trump loses, then kick him back out.

Are you sure he won't support him before this election cycle is over?  

[Motown Bombers]

 

[romad1]

11 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

 

African American colleague I would describe as very solid as an engineer but not particularly political said "its about time we stopped spending money on other people's wars" which is just...  ok, well...um.   

Others in the discussion said, better in Ukraine than elsewhere which sort of shut him up.  But, dayum.  

[Tiger337]

I always thought that America's involvement in wars was always to the benefit of Americans. Maybe not all Americans or even most Americans and the benefits may not always be well intentioned, but I don't think we are spending money and endangering soldiers for magnanimous reasons

[romad1]

21 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I always thought that America's involvement in wars was always to the benefit of Americans. Maybe not all Americans or even most Americans and the benefits may not always be well intentioned, but I don't think we are spending money and endangering soldiers for magnanimous reasons

The cost of everything goes up when the bandits and pirates control the lines of trade.   

[mtutiger]

32 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I always thought that America's involvement in wars was always to the benefit of Americans. Maybe not all Americans or even most Americans and the benefits may not always be well intentioned, but I don't think we are spending money and endangering soldiers for magnanimous reasons

1. The world order established under NATO has pretty significantly benefitted America and Americans over the years. Not the least of which being that the one time Article 5 was invoked was for our benefit after 9/11. Trump is pretty clearly saying that he will not honor that same commitment if Russia, like they did in Ukraine, invades a NATO ally.
2. NATO has also allowed us to sit at the head of the table and use "soft power" to work toward outcomes we want.... Trump's position would likely lead to that "soft power" being ceded to other nations (ie. China)
3. Approximately zero American soldiers are being endangered on account of this war.... the debate is over providing economic aid to a nation so that Ukrainians can fight to maintain their independence.
4. As much as the JD Vance/Mike Lee set feign concern for Ukranian deaths, their position is arrogant and denies the Ukrainians agency as, by all accounts, they were the wronged party in this conflict and aren't the ones that should be seen as needing to be brought to heel.

No doubt all of these points maybe aren't as well communicated as they should be, particularly nearly two years into this conflict, but they are just basic facts.

And on the point about "magnanimous" reasons, I think it's strange how the fact that their may be benefits to the United States just totally negates the idea that Ukraine may be benefitting from, you know, defending their nation from attack. When the alternative is being taken over by Russia, which is clearly an outcome that their government and a vast majority of their countrymen do not want.

[romad1]

2 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

1. The world order established under NATO has pretty significantly benefitted America and Americans over the years. Not the least of which being that the one time Article 5 was invoked was for our benefit after 9/11. Trump is pretty clearly saying that he will not honor that same commitment if Russia, like they did in Ukraine, invades a NATO ally.
2. NATO has also allowed us to sit at the head of the table and use "soft power" to work toward outcomes we want.... Trump's position would likely lead to that "soft power" being ceded to other nations (ie. China)
3. Approximately zero American soldiers are being endangered on account of this war.... the debate is over providing economic aid to a nation so that Ukrainians can fight to maintain their independence.
4. As much as the JD Vance/Mike Lee set feign concern for Ukranian deaths, their position is arrogant and denies the Ukrainians agency as, by all accounts, they were the wronged party in this conflict and aren't the ones that should be seen as needing to be brought to heel.

No doubt all of these points maybe aren't as well communicated as they should be, particularly nearly two years into this conflict, but they are just basic facts.

And on the point about "magnanimous" reasons, I think it's strange how the fact that their may be benefits to the United States just totally negates the idea that Ukraine may be benefitting from, you know, defending their nation from attack. When the alternative is being taken over by Russia, which is clearly an outcome that their government and a vast majority of their countrymen do not want.

MTU, This is very good stuff.  

Collective security is hard.  The fact that its benefits are not self-evident in the Ukraine case seems weird to me.   But, I am conscious of the US using the arguments for it as a cudgel when their motives were not pure or well-reasoned.   

 

 

 

[1984Echoes]

This is Asia and not Europe... but:

Put another way:

If China blockades the South China Sea and blocks all goods flow coming in or out of Asia (by sea):

We're ****ed.

 

It is critical to the United States to NOT have bad actors destroying or disrupting U.S. to Europe trade routes. U.S. to Asia trade routes, etc. Without collective security in Asia or Europe, the world descends back into the chaos of the pre-1950's again. World Wars (not just in the 20th century, but also the previous ones in the 1700&1800's between France & England, and Germany versus Europe), Great Depressions, etc.

[romad1]

7 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

This is Asia and not Europe... but:

Put another way:

If China blockades the South China Sea and blocks all goods flow coming in or out of Asia (by sea):

We're ****ed.

 

It is critical to the United States to NOT have bad actors destroying or disrupting U.S. to Europe trade routes. U.S. to Asia trade routes, etc. Without collective security in Asia or Europe, the world descends back into the chaos of the pre-1950's again. World Wars (not just in the 20th century, but also the previous ones in the 1700&1800's between France & England, and Germany versus Europe), Great Depressions, etc.

China is waiting to see how the civilized world behaves 

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

I always thought that America's involvement in wars was always to the benefit of Americans. Maybe not all Americans or even most Americans and the benefits may not always be well intentioned, but I don't think we are spending money and endangering soldiers for magnanimous reasons

I think the American interests in opposing a rogue state like Russia in Ukraine are not too hard to see.

Maybe the exception to this was Vietnam - I think that one was nearly all on ideological (and self-righteous) grounds - there wasn't much economic or strategic value in VN at the time. Certainly nothing there at the time like the mid-east's oil. I suppose one can argue that our initial concern was driven by concerns about the stability of France's NATO membership but by the late 60's when the war really heated up those issues were off the table and the French public, like most of Europe, was turning against the US prosecution of the war. But even for the most committed proponent of the 'Domino Theory' there was a contradiction at the core of their thinking. If Communism really was an inevitable force and there was no ultimate winning of 'the long twilight struggle', why were we bothering to waste blood and treasure half-way around the world? If we had been half way clear thinking at the time it should have been clear that the way to fight wars of revolution/independence was to work against the economic/political injustices around the world that drove them. But to do that as a general principle would run into vested profit interests - and the circle is closed.

Edited February 15 by gehringer_2

[1984Echoes]

2 hours ago, mtutiger said:

1. Approximately zero American soldiers are being endangered on account of this war.... the debate is over providing economic aid to a nation so that Ukrainians can fight to maintain their independence.

This shouldn't even be a debate point.

To add to this description:

Nearly 100% of the aid going to Ukraine (95? 98% ?) is for military aid.

That military aid is spent by Ukraine on AMERICAN arms and ammunitions. In other words, on American Businesses and WORKERS. We are benefiting, ECONOMICALLY, by providing military aid to Ukraine.

MAGA and Trump and the other brainless jagoffs in that movement either don't understand this. Or they are shouting it down/ hiding this fact because they don't want it to be known.

[Motown Bombers]

 

[smr-nj]

This is totally ridiculous.

What is the accusation here?  Ludicrous.

[RatkoVarda]

4 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

her reward: Trump will put her in the first slot of Muslim deportees

[smr-nj]

37 minutes ago, GoBlue23 said:

They're supposed to be attempting to prove that Willis and Wade started their relationship before he was hired. 

Which means what

[1984Echoes]

De nada.

They're just attacking the messenger to distract from the actual message.

That Trump is a corrupt fascist and liar.

[oblong]

11 minutes ago, GoBlue23 said:

You don't see anything unethical about an elected official hiring someone onto a case who they're in a relationship with?

Obviously this is all a smear attempt by team Trump and has nothing to do with the case, but that doesn't mean there aren't issues with what Willis is being accused of.  

Perhaps it is unethical but it’s how corporate America operated for a very long time.  Usually it’s the man bringing along ththe woman. That’s acceptable. But a powerful woman?  They gotta behave. 

[smr-nj]

If there was mis-use of funds, then , yes - that needs to be addressed. Ethically and criminally - a big, fat wrong.

Otherwise, is there an accusation that he’s not qualified? 
I’m trying to understand how this is something that benefits DT.  
It just seems to be more of a “distract / delay”, throw spaghetti at the wall thing.

Stupid behavior… but, criminal? Come on.

[gehringer_2]

49 minutes ago, GoBlue23 said:

You don't see anything unethical about an elected official hiring someone onto a case who they're in a relationship with?

Obviously this is all a smear attempt by team Trump and has nothing to do with the case, but that doesn't mean there aren't issues with what Willis is being accused of.  

There probably are conflict/relationship rules associated with both their appointments, but whether either or both of them violated them is probably not relevant to any prosecutions they were pursuing because there is no intersection to the interest of the defendant. If a cop violates Miranda, or the evidence of an illegal search led to a conviction, then that is misconduct that goes to the the rights of the defendant and does and should poisons the trail and voids a case. How does a conflict in the appointment of a  prosecutor impact any particular defendant? Is the arg that Willis would have hired a LESS competent counsel if there had been no (alleged) conflict? That hardly washes.  I don't see where Willis critics go with this. I suppose if she is fired it could set back the case - but there must be other people in the office up to speed on the case. Any org has some kind of "Next man up"  and all that....

Edited February 15 by gehringer_2