American Politics Discussion

[Spike]

48 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/11/11/israel-iran-war-news-gaza-palestine-lebanon/

 

Gonna be a fun four years for the mental gymnasts in Dearborn, Michigan.

What mental gymnastics? Repulicans always had a higher vote in Dearborn this election even on early voting, what happened is that they swung to Jill Stein by nearly 7,000 or didn't vote; so they literally voted for a candidate that didn't endorse genocide. 10% less turnout between 2024 and 2016 as well, and 10x more votes to Stein.

https://dearborn.gov/sites/default/files/2024-11/UNOFFICIAL Results_Nov 5 2024 Presidential Election - ALL - ELECTION DAY_City of Dearborn.pdf
https://cityofdearborn.org/documents/city-departments/city-clerk/elections/election-results/3587-november-8-2016-election-results/file

Mate, You HAVE to stop spreading Democratic party lines that are trying to blame minorities and everyone in between for their loss.

Edited November 11 by Spike

[Dr. Gonzo]

11 minutes ago, Spike said:

What mental gymnastics? Repulicans always had a higher vote in Dearborn this election even on early voting, what happened is that they swung to Jill Stein by nearly 7,000 or didn't vote; so they literally voted for a candidate that didn't endorse genocide. 10% less turnout between 2024 and 2016 as well, and 10x more votes to Stein.

https://dearborn.gov/sites/default/files/2024-11/UNOFFICIAL Results_Nov 5 2024 Presidential Election - ALL - ELECTION DAY_City of Dearborn.pdf
https://cityofdearborn.org/documents/city-departments/city-clerk/elections/election-results/3587-november-8-2016-election-results/file

Mate, You HAVE to stop spreading Democratic party lines that are trying to blame minorities and everyone in between for their loss.

I'm not blaming anyone for Harris's loss other than the democrats who didn't turn up to vote. And voting 3rd party in the US makes sense... if that party actually has any sort of local, regional, or statewide platform. Pretty sure Jill Stein's Green Party doesn't have any such thing though - they just exist to be a spoiler candidate. Voting Green for president is basically the same as not voting.

But I am going to enjoy watching that Islamicist crowd weep for what they voted for.

[Spike]

15 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I'm not blaming anyone for Harris's loss other than the democrats who didn't turn up to vote. And voting 3rd party in the US makes sense... if that party actually has any sort of local, regional, or statewide platform. Pretty sure Jill Stein's Green Party doesn't have any such thing though - they just exist to be a spoiler candidate. Voting Green for president is basically the same as not voting.

But I am going to enjoy watching that Islamicist crowd weep for what they voted for.

They had already voted in a President that supported genocide. The problem is that literally everyone thinks that way, and when people break the mould of the two party system, they are criticised?

 

[Spike]

People are cowards, ‘well who I want vote for won’t win, so I’ll vote for diet evil’. It’s pathetic. Voting third candidate is throwing a vote away? Well so is voting Democrat if you don’t believe in them.

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 minute ago, Spike said:

The problem is that literally everyone thinks that way, and when people break the mould of the two party system, they are criticised?

They're not breaking any mould. They're voting for a party that has no presence on a national level. Or on a state level. Or at a regional level. Or even at a local level.

Breaking a mould would be election reform that makes it so America isn't a two party system. Or backing a third party that actually has any sort of footing at any level in the US. A party that only has presidential candidates and nothing else is not a serious party.

[Spike]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

They're not breaking any mould. They're voting for a party that has no presence on a national level. Or on a state level. Or at a regional level. Or even at a local level.

Breaking a mould would be election reform that makes it so America isn't a two party system. Or backing a third party that actually has any sort of footing at any level in the US. A party that only has presidential candidates and nothing else is not a serious party.

This sort of exposure is how parties get traction. It’s hard to get people on board when they are sceptical, but performing well and getting a further reach makes it more likely against the entrenched, because otherwise people will keep thinking like you’ve just mentioned and just give up, vote for something they disagree with and then complain about it.

They do have local representation.

[Dr. Gonzo]

4 minutes ago, Spike said:

This sort of exposure is how parties get traction. It’s hard to get people on board when they are sceptical, but performing well and getting a further reach makes it more likely against the entrenched, because otherwise people will keep thinking like you’ve just mentioned and just give up, vote for something they disagree with and then complain about it.

They do have local representation.

As of 2024, 8 Greens have held state-level office. However, only 3 were elected or re-elected as Greens.

As of 2024, no Greens currently hold state-level office.

& one mayor.

Truly a serious party.

[Spike]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

As of 2024, 8 Greens have held state-level office. However, only 3 were elected or re-elected as Greens.

As of 2024, no Greens currently hold state-level office.

& one mayor.

Truly a serious party.

I’d take the joke of a party that hasn’t had the chance to put children in cages over the two ‘real parties’.

If I could vote I wouldn’t have voted Democrat or Republican.

[6666]

2 hours ago, Spike said:

They had already voted in a President that supported genocide. The problem is that literally everyone thinks that way, and when people break the mould of the two party system, they are criticised?

 

This is one of the main reasons why politicians are freely allowed to be shit. Parties like the Democrats in the US and the Labour Party in the UK just play the lesser evil gimmick and push that as the best option possible.

I have no issue with people voting for "the lesser evil" but people voting for the person they think might be good is how things should work.

Dem supporters becoming openly racist in reaction to Harris being shit is them showing their true colours. This idea they should have the votes of minorities by default is why a lot of minorities understandably grow resentful of these types of parties.

[6666]

3 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

But I am going to enjoy watching that Islamicist crowd weep for what they voted for.

I assumed you were already doing this with all your defensive plays for Israel...

I guess you're just being more open about it now. Genocide is now good because less than 100% of Muslims voted for Harris? The Latinos all getting deported will really show them lot as well right? Psychotic mentality but unfortunately one that a lot of heart broken, brain broken Dem supporters seem to share at the moment.

Also hilarious how we always have to pretend US foreign policy being the biggest posion in international polictics is only a thing when there's a Republican politician. It doesn't count when the Democrats are in charge...

Reality is that foreign policy only changes as far as rhetoric and coverage when it comes to which party is in charge. Thousands and thousands of brown people still suffer regardless (which I'm sure you'll freely celebrate now). Republicans being in charge means the rhetoric will be more openly racist and it means mainstream news media will criticise the foreign policy of killing everyone rather than trying to justify or ignore it if it was the Democrats.

[Dr. Gonzo]

2 hours ago, 6666 said:

I assumed you were already doing this with all your defensive plays for Israel...

I guess you're just being more open about it now. Genocide is now good because less than 100% of Muslims voted for Harris? The Latinos all getting deported will really show them lot as well right? Psychotic mentality but unfortunately one that a lot of heart broken, brain broken Dem supporters seem to share at the moment.

Also hilarious how we always have to pretend US foreign policy being the biggest posion in international polictics is only a thing when there's a Republican politician. It doesn't count when the Democrats are in charge...

Reality is that foreign policy only changes as far as rhetoric and coverage when it comes to which party is in charge. Thousands and thousands of brown people still suffer regardless (which I'm sure you'll freely celebrate now). Republicans being in charge means the rhetoric will be more openly racist and it means mainstream news media will criticise the foreign policy of killing everyone rather than trying to justify or ignore it if it was the Democrats.

I’m just watching people reap what they’ve sown. I’ve not said anything about cheering for a genocide.

I’m also middle eastern lol

But I think it’s telling that’s your accusation. Because it’s projection and it’s clearly what you’d be doing if the conflict was going the other way around.

[OrangeKhrush]

The results were unexpected but astounding,  the Democrat talking heads were right about one thing,  Democracy was saved,  the will of the people was clearly and unambiguously decided upon what the real interests were. 

The meltdowns were fun for a few days,  they are now cliched and boring.   I wonder how many are going to use the freedoms they have to leave like they say they will,  my guess is not many because nothing the establishment said is going to materialise. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

2 hours ago, OrangeKhrush said:

The results were unexpected but astounding,  the Democrat talking heads were right about one thing,  Democracy was saved,  the will of the people was clearly and unambiguously decided upon what the real interests were. 

The meltdowns were fun for a few days,  they are now cliched and boring.   I wonder how many are going to use the freedoms they have to leave like they say they will,  my guess is not many because nothing the establishment said is going to materialise. 

Do you think it will go much like the first time around or do you think he'll be a bit more focused now?

Because the first time around would have been hilarious if I was living in another country  - the amount of turnover in his cabinet and staff was absurd. Other than imposition of tariffs and low taxes for the wealthy, I'm not sure he's truly interested in any policy. And that's part of why his first term was so chaotic - it was a hodge-podge of policy ideas from various cabinet members and advisors, who he'd then fall out with and sack, then replace and the direction of his policy would change.

His UN ambassador pick is a lunatic... but has a pretty traditional neo-con view of foreign policy. He's gone with Little Marco Rubio as his pick for Secretary of State and that's very much an establishment republican pick.

I don't know much about his chief of staff, but it seems she is more of a regular republican than a diehard MAGA cultist - so while I think US foreign policy will continue to be terrible as it has been throughout my lifetime, I don't think it's going to be as extreme as what was proposed by his advisors for Project 2025/Agenda 47. However with his domestic policy, it looks like he's appointing some of the authors of Project 2025/Agenda 47 who wrote specific policy papers.

So are we going to be looking at a Bush-era style foreign policy with a MAGA cultist domestic policy, at least for the early days of his presidency?

[OrangeKhrush]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Do you think it will go much like the first time around or do you think he'll be a bit more focused now?

Because the first time around would have been hilarious if I was living in another country  - the amount of turnover in his cabinet and staff was absurd. Other than imposition of tariffs and low taxes for the wealthy, I'm not sure he's truly interested in any policy. And that's part of why his first term was so chaotic - it was a hodge-podge of policy ideas from various cabinet members and advisors, who he'd then fall out with and sack, then replace and the direction of his policy would change.

His UN ambassador pick is a lunatic... but has a pretty traditional neo-con view of foreign policy. He's gone with Little Marco Rubio as his pick for Secretary of State and that's very much an establishment republican pick.

I don't know much about his chief of staff, but it seems she is more of a regular republican than a diehard MAGA cultist - so while I think US foreign policy will continue to be terrible as it has been throughout my lifetime, I don't think it's going to be as extreme as what was proposed by his advisors for Project 2025/Agenda 47. However with his domestic policy, it looks like he's appointing some of the authors of Project 2025/Agenda 47 who wrote specific policy papers.

So are we going to be looking at a Bush-era style foreign policy with a MAGA cultist domestic policy, at least for the early days of his presidency?

I think he would have learned from the last time,  that it matters who you build around.   It is fundamentally important to surround yourself with big brains,  high charisma,  high energy type people.    If they play this smart they set themselves up for 2028 and a succession plan,  it is also enough time to get someone like Ramaswamy capable to run. 

He does have some obstacles he will need to clear out fast,   establishment Republican saboteurs.   Romney, McConnel, McCarthy, Christie, Graham.   They are charlatans.

Then it will be about the policies,  the electorate does not like to wait,  there are quite a few low hanging fruits to start that process off.   

 

 

 

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

3 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

It is fundamentally important to surround yourself with big brains,  high charisma,  high energy type people.

Lol if we're waiting for that we might as well be waiting for Godot.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Lol for his ambassador to Israel he's picked Mike Huckabee, a zealot who thinks it is absolutely necessary for a holy war to occur in the so called "holy lands" in the hopes that he might get to meet his good pal Jesus.

Think we've got a pretty strong signal on what his Middle East policy will entail on day 1.

[Devil-Dick Willie]

On 12/11/2024 at 13:02, 6666 said:

I assumed you were already doing this with all your defensive plays for Israel...

I guess you're just being more open about it now. Genocide is now good because less than 100% of Muslims voted for Harris? The Latinos all getting deported will really show them lot as well right? Psychotic mentality but unfortunately one that a lot of heart broken, brain broken Dem supporters seem to share at the moment.

Also hilarious how we always have to pretend US foreign policy being the biggest posion in international polictics is only a thing when there's a Republican politician. It doesn't count when the Democrats are in charge...

Reality is that foreign policy only changes as far as rhetoric and coverage when it comes to which party is in charge. Thousands and thousands of brown people still suffer regardless (which I'm sure you'll freely celebrate now). Republicans being in charge means the rhetoric will be more openly racist and it means mainstream news media will criticise the foreign policy of killing everyone rather than trying to justify or ignore it if it was the Democrats.

That's because it's true. Did you watch Trump on Rogan? His solution to any kind of issue he has with a nation is to call the president/PM/king and tell them he's going to tariff imports at 200%. Which is why the US copped so many tariffs of it's own during his term and why US companies started building more offshore factories and facilities. Similar to post brexit England lol. Turns out when you put up barriers to trade, people don't want to trade with you. 

That was when he could be encouraged and directed to say anything that was remotely on topic by Rogan of course. The guy has no mental facilities left.

Edited November 13 by Devil-Dick Willie

[Dr. Gonzo]

39 minutes ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

That's because it's true. Did you watch Trump on Rogan? His solution to any kind of issue he has with a nation is to call the president/PM/king and tell them he's going to tariff imports at 200%. Which is why the US copped so many tariffs of it's own during his term and why US companies started building more offshore factories and facilities. Similar to post brexit England lol. Turns out when you put up barriers to trade, people don't want to trade with you. 

That was when he could be encouraged and directed to say anything that was remotely on topic by Rogan of course. The guy has no mental facilities left.

And even going back to what he’s talking about… 2 Republican presidents shaped the modern Middle East - Bush & Trump. With the conflict he’s specifically obsessed about, Trump pulling out of the JCPOA & Soleimani’s assassination directly led to hardliners coming to power… and planning and arming Hamas to use as pawns, knowing full well what that would mean for the entire population of Gaza.

And yes, there’s also the impact on the global economy of when you’ve got a protectionist idiot in power that’s starting trade wars with everyone. Which… just causes the whole world to get poorer as prices for everything go up.

Democrats aren’t great, but this was an election between a boring regular politician or Donald Trump and all the idiocy that he brings. I understand progressives genuinely hating the political system of America… but just like Brexit, it wasn’t the right time for a fucking protest vote.

That’s why I’ve got no issue mocking  any American of middle eastern descent who voted for him. And I’m including the many Iranian-Americans who did the same thing, hoping that far cunt will do a fucking thing about human rights. Do these people have the memory of goldfish? He was president once before not that long ago

[Spike]

It literally doesn’t matter if they voted democrat or republican because you can say the exact same line. 
 

‘You voted democrat? they are supporting a genocide’
’You voted republican? they will support a genocide’

If genocide if your hardline then you have to protest vote a third party, acting like one or the either is a better choice is insanity. They’d be reaping what they so regardless of the vote

Wr aren’t talking economic policy, or domestic policy, if those are your hardline vote democrat IDGAF, that just means you care more about the economy than what is happening in the ME, and a lot of people feel that way, which is fine I suppose.

Edited November 13 by Spike

[Spike]

Not to mention any vote of the last near fifty years to either party has been a vote against the Middle East. Either way trying to justify it is a cope. Staying loyal to the democrats despite every single administration making the Middle East worse is just as insane as flipping to republicans, it’s the same.

b-but maybe this time it’ll be different 

is the same as 

b-but the other guys might be different 

[Dr. Gonzo]

4 hours ago, Spike said:

It literally doesn’t matter if they voted democrat or republican because you can say the exact same line. 
 

‘You voted democrat? they are supporting a genocide’
’You voted republican? they will support a genocide’

If genocide if your hardline then you have to protest vote a third party, acting like one or the either is a better choice is insanity. They’d be reaping what they so regardless of the vote

Wr aren’t talking economic policy, or domestic policy, if those are your hardline vote democrat IDGAF, that just means you care more about the economy than what is happening in the ME, and a lot of people feel that way, which is fine I suppose.

The thing is they had a choice between: 1.) Harris doing the status quo, 2.) Trump doing the republican status quo, which is the same policy on Israel but giving Israel less restraint, or 3.) Voting third party in a swing state, which is essentially just voting for Trump to give Israel less restraint.

You've got a choice between a lesser evil, a greater evil, or a protest vote which ultimately just helps the greater evil but I guess there's less guilt attached to it than outright voting Trump. But I think that's essentially them saying they care more about their feelings than whether or not Gaza exists in 4 years or if illegal West Bank settlements end up becoming annexed.

[Spike]

Just now, Dr. Gonzo said:

The thing is they had a choice between: 1.) Harris doing the status quo, 2.) Trump doing the republican status quo, which is the same policy on Israel but giving Israel less restraint, or 3.) Voting third party in a swing state, which is essentially just voting for Trump to give Israel less restraint.

You've got a choice between a lesser evil, a greater evil, or a protest vote which ultimately just helps the greater evil but I guess there's less guilt attached to it than outright voting Trump. But I think that's essentially them saying they care more about their feelings than whether or not Gaza exists in 4 years or if illegal West Bank settlements end up becoming annexed.

I don’t believe that in any capacity that the democrats don’t let Israel do what they want, not once did the Biden administration do anything but kowtow and send in more munitions and build more war infrastructure. The republicans are just louder evangelically.

I don’t believe in any capacity there is a lesser evil in this particular regard. On other subjects sure, but not this.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Just now, Spike said:

I don’t believe that in any capacity that the democrats don’t let Israel do what they want, not once did the Biden administration do anything but kowtow and send in more munitions and build more war infrastructure. The republicans are just louder evangelically.

I don’t believe in any capacity there is a lesser evil in this particular regard. On other subjects sure, but not this.

I think they'd have gone crazy on Lebanon and bombed Iran's oil facilities, if not nuclear facilities.

You also don't see Israeli politicians talking about annexing the illegal settlements under the Biden administration - whereas Trump is now president elect and low and behold, that's now seemingly on the table and up for discussion.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Trump is creating a Department of Government Efficiency. He's announced Elon Musk & Vivek Ramaswamy will head it.

Personally, I think it's genuinely funny that the department for "efficiency" is going to have 2 bosses. I can't think of anything that screams efficiency like creating a new department... and then appointing two people to run it.

[Spike]

Just now, Dr. Gonzo said:

I think they'd have gone crazy on Lebanon and bombed Iran's oil facilities, if not nuclear facilities.

You also don't see Israeli politicians talking about annexing the illegal settlements under the Biden administration - whereas Trump is now president elect and low and behold, that's now seemingly on the table and up for discussion.

But Biden is still president, and it’s not like they weren’t doing these things regardless.