There's no cognitive dissonance only me being amused by insane hysterics.

They all get to vote later on. But I love how your panties are getting twisted. It's very entertaining.

We are in crises, multiple ones. They're just not immediate enough for people to realise.

being conservative means you're as ignorant today as you were yesterday. So no, he'll stay.

You're just miffed their spectacle is effective and they're going to win the election.

In addition, from what was he removed? He wasn't the official Democratic candidate, merely presumptive.

I don't see the problem. If a party leader is clearly incompetent or does things contrary to the principles of the party they ought to be ousted.

love it.

BTW, excellent commentary from two Dutch comedians back in the 80`s which has only become more relevant:

if only the Indians would've had a more stringent immigration policy, the US wouldn't be such a mess today.

What is? So far I've only seen inferences, which is mostly wishful thinking from GOPhers. The DNC would've had options during their convention to sideline Biden within the rules as well.

Your lack of knowledge of political organisation shines through when you insist on collectivism being statist. Your don't know what you're talking about because you've never spend the time to actually study the subject. You're not dumb simply uninformed and uneducated and entirely boring as a result.

"let's get politically organised by not having a weak nominee" equals fascism when you're a trump turd. For all their differences, in the end progressives and collectivists are always better organised when they believe it's necessary.

Edit: which is why the Democrats are still perfectly positioned to fuck up again because they're neither progressive or collectivists but those that are see the Democratic Party ad the only viable ticket at the moment.

Look behind the curtain of Trump's bullshit and you'll see a pending American reformation. That's how the puzzle pieces are coming together for me. How about you? — frank

That whole post is wishful thinking. Note what he did during his presidency was mostly to benefit rich people. Duties on Chinese goods also protects local business, which can be a smart industry policy but since no such policy existed, we know why it happened. Not to help main street.

Yes, this sums it up:

Of course if you're talking about their inability to foresee Biden's age problems after RBG and even Feinstein months before he started running again, then yeah it is entirely a failure of leadership though that ship has already sailed. Complacency and arrogance from the ones at the top are what gave us Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2024. — Mr Bee

The fact people don't get decent choices reflects the USA is simply not a democracy. I would add complacency and arrogance also got you Biden in 2020. Entirely uninspired. They deserve the dog piling and the whining it's bad for Biden is not the media's fault but a direct consequence of their own arrogance. Democrats should just rename themselves to "never Trump" because that's what it's been about since Hillary.

That's 3 elections where voting is intended to stop Trump. It's insane the Democrats aren't capable of fielding candidates people actually like. Lichtman only considers this in terms of winning; I think there's more to elections than winning. It's also about why you're winning. This just further entrenches Dem vs GOP and sets up the terms for the next election which will not be about policy (again).

Biden has to go because he's unfit. Trump never should be the nominee but the GOP has been shit since Reagan.

Mr "absolute free speech" complains about people saying Biden should withdraw and calls it undemocratic. The hypocrisy. :rofl:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/xT4YpIt9zLE

I still don't like him but it was well done indeed.

Aging is an issue for one of the most important jobs in the world and in Biden's case we're talking about dementia. He's a vegetable half of the time.

Seems like a good choice for running mate despite the one dimensional depiction of "white" poverty in Hillbilly Elegy.

That is obviously NOS4A2 calling out what he believes is hypocrisy: Trump incited an insurrection through words then Biden incited this attack through words. Anything else would be hypocrisy.

Because there's no way to resolve the territorial claims between Ukraine and Russia through diplomatic means as long as this stalemate persists. But this is a tangent. My point was, it's ridiculous to qualify every (or most) Trump voter(s) as "voting against their interest", "irrational" or "stupid".

I would've never opted for the communication that Ukraine would join NATO but now, yes, I most definitely would put boots on the ground in Ukraine to end that war as soon as possible.

Trump still thinks if he levies tariffs on Chinese goods that the Chinese pay them. — Wayfarer

I didn't say he was smart. I said it's the right thing to do. Chinese goods shouldn't compete with US or EU products unless they meet our EH&S standards as well. Until then it's just unfair competition that we're rewarding.

Should the risk of triggering a nuclear war between the country with the most nuclear weapons on the planet vs ‘the rest’ be a consideration? — Wayfarer

Russian doctrine on the use of nuclear weapons is clear: only in defense of the motherland. As long as they stay clear of Crimea, it shouldn't be an issue.

I think Trump's stance on China and hitting it with tariffs is the only correct stance. It's ridiculous to give an autocratic country that oppresses its own people this much economic power and influence over our own economies, which it only reaches because it's not playing by the same rules as we expect of our own businesses.

I think the West's stance on Ukraine is cowardly. If Ukraine is to join NATO and Russia basically (predictably) attacks it because of those NATO statements, they should bear the consequences of those statements. Letting Ukrainians die and not being prepared to actually risk our own people is horrible. And if we're not prepared to stand up for our own security, we shouldn't antagonised Russia. Who knows what Trump would've done but it hardly could've been more callous than what happened now.

Not saying you have to agree with this assessment: but preferring Trump (or GOP) over Biden isn't the insanity people like to pretend it is.

I still think he should be in jail as well for J6.

does he? How are Ukraine and Israel going? Is China being handled properly?

Time will tell. If there's justice in the universe, there will be justice for J6. — fishfry

That's not how justice works. You have to actively work for it but I guess if you vote in the US you have to pretend justice is released like manna from the heavens because your political system is currently incapable of protecting it.

Instead you choose to judge Trump on his words, and not on his actions, which were in fact no different than Obamas. He used Obama's cages for God's sake, you can't say with a straight face that they were Lightbringer cages when Obama stuck kids in them and Orange Hitler cages when Trump did it. — fishfry

False.

Some cages were built by Obama and some children were separated under exceptional circumstances. Trump wrote a blanket policy to prosecute all illegal border crossers which resulted in a blanket separation of kids from their families. A lot more cages were build. There's your "action" to judge.

Biden, even in his old age, is hugely more competent and suitable for the role than Trump. But the issue is his electoral appeal, or absence of it. — Wayfarer

No he isn't. He's a vegetable halve the time and therefore he has no appeal. Don't dumb other voters down just because you think he's still competent. The arrogance everytime of telling other voters how they should think is astounding and definitely a contributory factor to the appeal of Trump.

Americans love fighters so Trump surviving this and his impeccable instincts with his fist pumping will win him the presidency.

Bunch of unarmed, peaceful protesters were invited in by the Capitol police, things got out of hand and a riot ensued.
— fishfry

:rofl: I see you're thoroughly misinformed nowadays. — Benkei

I have no clue why you started talking about cages. Maybe you have more in common with Biden than you think? :wink:

Perhaps you can explain what I'm misinformed about re the family separations and cages. — fishfry

Perhaps you should stick to the part I quoted?

Bunch of unarmed, peaceful protesters were invited in by the Capitol police, things got out of hand and a riot ensued. — fishfry

:rofl: I see you're thoroughly misinformed nowadays.

Threat. And he lobbed a few missiles at Syria. Drone strike against Soleimani. No new wars. He uses threats to keep the peace. I didn't call him a milquetoast. I called him a peacemaker. Based on results. No new wars. First prez in my lifetime who can say that. — fishfry

Love the cavalier attitude to the use of armed force. This really underlines my point. Let's pretend it's not a war and then it's ok. No matter that "war" isn't the appropriate legal term any more. No matter that the President can unilaterally decide to put soldiers, e.g. US citizens, into harm's way because "technically" it isn't a war. No matter that it's still armed aggression, which is prohibited under the UN Charter so the President is unilaterally deciding to breach treaties Congress signed up to. It's authoritarian and it was his primary M.O. with respect to international relations. Of course, other US Presidents have done the same thing but presenting Trump as a peace candidate is silly and not borne out by the facts.

And in our lifetimes, what president started no new wars? It was Trump. — fishfry

False. Look it up. Military intervention and threat was his primary foreign policy tool.

And yes, Republicans are more authoritarian than Democrats even if they both are. Only Republicans have had sitting presidents and advisors argue in favour of it and the unitary executive theory. Most recently in court. Or did you miss that?

Many of what? I'm talking about contemporary history; I didn't go further back than Reagan for my list!

Good luck with that. Most philosophers use it as a crutch to maintain dumb ideas like: anti-natalism, "god exists" and "murdering babies is fine".

I hardly see the GOP as authoritarian. Going back a ways, which of these postwar GOP presidents were authoritarians? Ike, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43, Trump. Feel free to explain to me what these folks did that was authoritarian. I opposed the hell out of 43's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but those wars never could have happened without the enthusiastic consent of the top Dems such as Hillary, Schumer, Biden, et. al.

In theory, the GOPs should be for free enterprise. Not that they really are, but that's more of libertarian sensibility. But I'm open to understanding you observation. When Obama ruled "with a pen and phone," was that the unitary executive? Or when the Supreme Court told Biden he couldn't transfer student loans to the taxpayers and he did it anyway, was that the unitary executive? — fishfry

You hardly see because it's a feature not a bug. But some things that have me grimace in distaste are the ability of US Presidents to:

• Rule by executive order (which have included travel bans, torture (Bush's classified "directive"), immigration, listening in on all data (for "security" EO 12333), healthcare reform and environmental policies).
• Veto legislation.
• Deploy troops in foreign territory without congressional authority (because technically it isn't a war)

Yes, this is absolutely authoritarian from the view of a European democracy. Unitary executive theory would take this even further.

What are and were the substantial policy differences between other GOP candidates and Trump? What exactly was the choice there?

I recall qualifying the 2020 election as a choice between two evils. One of those evils got a lot worse.

It clarifies once again that the USA doesn't qualify as a democracy. If the political system cannot produce choices beyond a vegetable and a criminal then quite obviously other people are in control what you get to vote on. We call that banana republics.

You don't have a left in the US. You have a slightly left of centre Sanders who is silenced by the Democratic Party which is itself right but not as authoritarian as the Republicans (unitary theory of government Bullshit).

Ok, so theoreticially possible but practically unlikely.