Trump killed 14 people in South Dakota.

That's because Democrats are always heavily armed.

They were. four shootings and several alleged sexual assaults in the span of weeks.

They were. four shootings and several alleged sexual assaults in the span of weeks. — NOS4A2

Plus they looted several Walmarts, sneaking away with large amounts of baby diapers.

Find illegal votes because he was concerned about illegal activity, like a president ought to be. Democrats objected to Trump’s election first by trying to impose “faithless electors”, and also by claiming Trump was working for the Kremlin. Their constituents took over entire cities, and burned many to the ground, including laying siege to the whitehouse. All of this of course passes your norm test, I’m sure, but if course I never saw you raise any objection. — NOS4A2

The man said OUTRIGHT before the election that if he loses it will be because of fraud. He literally said what he was going to do before anything happened, and then DID IT. He did everything out in the open. He pulled one over on you with his neat trick ;).

So when he asked for the votes, it wasn't just that he was voicing "concern" over (in that case, boo-hoo, and so what), it was the nature of his request to overturn the election results. When the wording is "find him some votes- 11,700), he is a man in search of a desperate ploy to get as much as needed to win and subvert the system. I can't imagine even Nixon would do something that blatant!

The "faithless electors" thing is a non-issue being that it was not supported or carried out by Democratic leadership in 2016, if that's what you are talking about. There was also no coordination with attempting to not recognize the legitimate electors for fake ones. And with this case there's more a few moving parts with the conspiracy to defraud the public from a position of power in the federal government.

As far as election collusion with Russia, not only was Trump asking Russia to help him publically, but even the Muller Report pointed out people in his campaign like Paul Manafort directly having ties with Russia, even if the supposed "Steele Dossier" was incorrect. That is to say, why was he even dealing with the Russians at all in this campaign, being that, you know, Russia is not on friendly terms with the US, and it is a CLEAR conflict of interest in sharing things like internal polling data to people associated with the Kremlin.

As for the violence regarding the BLM situation, I am actually against any violence that rioters were doing in the name of the cause, especially when the cause itself is regarding violence. I am with MLK's non-violence strategy regarding this. Clear destruction of property doesn't help anyone's cause. However, all that being said, it is a false equivalency to to say that the BLM movement was subverting the democratic process, rather than various protest groups protesting a social cause.

Find illegal votes because he was concerned about illegal activity, like a president ought to be. — NOS4A2

:rofl:

The man said OUTRIGHT before the election that if he loses it will be because of fraud. He literally said what he was going to do before anything happened, and then DID IT. — schopenhauer1

:up:

It was very easy to predict that Trump, if he lost, would claim it was stolen. He’s been doing it since Ted Cruz won Iowa.

And he only lost the popular vote in ‘16 because of millions of illegal votes, of course.

Imagine believing this stupid shit? I thought the Russia thing was silly, but this takes the cake. Especially from those who are quick to agree about the Russian narrative being silly.

2August24

A "Black job"? Madame POTUS ...

Roevember is coming! :victory: :mask:

NOS is the dude insisting words don't matter because they've never caused anything while being a sucker for absolute free speech.

I didn't take offense, nor was my comment a jab at you. Rather, it was a general observation that interest groups get people to spread their propaganda willingly.

I myself just try to talk some sense into people. It is a thankless job that I wish I got paid for. :lol:

2August24

IMO the best alternative to Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (from the short list of "six prospective running-mates" according to press reports) is Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker. Of course, the Harris campaign has nothing to worry about selecting her running-mate since almost any elected mouth-breather with a working brain will embarrass the hell out of MAGA Mini-me Vance ...

:smirk:

I saw some "far-right" protests in the UK today and their "anti-fascists" responders, and it was like here in the US: the "far-right" protesters were 97% white males, and the "anti-fascists" a mix from all the rest, with white females included.

I read in The Hill a few years ago that 65% of girls in US high schools and colleges declare to be "progressive", whereas only 28% of boys do that.

This thing has started to trouble me a little, since in my family I know that we share similar opinions regardless of gender. We are all leftists and once upon a time I was the only theist/religious in my family, till that day when I became a copy of my parents: another proud agnostic.

So I guess I need to go back to high school in order to find out how come gender will have a saying on one's probability to be a democrat or a republican, a theist or an agnostic, etc.

Do schools nowadays (and/or social media) have more impact on young people than their own parents? I don't know how kids are brought up in other parts of this planet, but in Europe and US (which I know enough) I thought parents do not tell sons different stories from those they tell their daughters.

So it is a big puzzle to me how sisters and brothers do not think the same anymore. Are parents the real educators of their kids nowadays? I really can't imagine a mom telling her daughter Kamala is great and then telling her son Donald is great.

The suicide rate for men is four times higher than women. I think men are struggling to find their purpose in life these days. Society in first world countries has reached a point where women don't need men, but men feel like complete losers if they can't get a woman. So they go down these weird rabbit holes, and the rabbit holes are all conservative in nature, pining for a lost age where a man could have a factory job, a decent house, provide for his family, and the Mrs would have his slippers and martini ready when he came home.

Good point Rogue Al, but I think is true for certain countries. In the US the suicide rate for men is four times greater than for women (biggest difference in the whole world I think). In Asia and Africa there are countries where the suicide rates between men and women are different and there may be a few countries where female suicides slightly surpass those of men (maybe Sri Lanka and Afghanistan, but I am not sure on this).

Lately, I have started thinking that something might be really rotten with schools and social media. It seems that females and males are targeted differently by education, models, ads, electoral campaigns, policies, etc., to come to this outcome where a brother may be "far-right" and his sister "anti-fascist".

I respect people's choices, but someone needs to convince me that gender should play a role in this. From history books I know that certain cultures had different rules for women and different rules for men, but I also know that communist and fascist regimes (and all religions) had equal support among women and men, insofar as both women and men were "educated" properly by these regimes.

Lately, I have started thinking that something might be really rotten with schools and social media. It seems that females and males are targeted differently by education, models, ads, electoral campaigns, policies, etc., to come to this outcome where a brother may be "far-right" and his sister "anti-fascist". — Eros1982

I'm an elementary school teacher, and I can tell you the education system was not designed for boys. I incorporate a lot of breaks throughout the day because I know my boys need to get up and move. I've been criticized for this my whole career. I'm told I should teach "bell to bell", but I'm tenured, so fuck those people. I do what I want. My school even banned football, because it led to fighting. I let my boys do it on the sly.

So, I think right from the start, boys sort of know the education system is biased against them. But before I go any further, I want to see if you agree with me that support for someone like Trump is an aberration that needs to be explained. That to a "normal" person (however we define that) someone like Trump is loathsome and reviled.

In Asia and Africa there are countries where the suicide rates between men and women are different and there may be a few countries where female suicides slightly surpass those of men (maybe Sri Lanka and Afghanistan, but I am not sure on this). — Eros1982

In places where women have not reached parity with men, I would expect the suicide rate of women to be much higher. Who wants to live as a second-class citizen?

I'm an elementary school teacher, and I can tell you the education system was not designed for boys. I incorporate a lot of breaks throughout the day because I know my boys need to get up and move. I've been criticized for this my whole career. I'm told I should teach "bell to bell", but I'm tenured, so fuck those people. I do what I want. My school even banned football, because it led to fighting. I let my boys do it on the sly. — RogueAI

,

Very interesting. To the best of my knowledge there is one single country in the western world that has accepted that "traditional elementary schools" are failing boys and that country is Finland. Finland, to the best of my knowledge, is thinking seriously to make a few reforms so that elementary schools will stop failing boys.

So, I think right from the start, boys sort of know the education system is biased against them. But before I go any further, I want to see if you agree with me that support for someone like Trump is an aberration that needs to be explained. That to a "normal" person (however we define that) someone like Trump is loathsome and reviled. — RogueAI

I see your point here. Although a leftist, I do not agree with all the ways democrats have chosen to keep power and I have seen so many times that they shift priorities after they come in office. I am a green-new-deal supporter (in general, not in every detail), but I saw how Biden administration did nothing in that direction, I saw how black lives did not improve within four years, and I saw that gun violence did not fade. So, I support some democrats, but I consider it really weird when some young women ask me what I think about Trump, before they make any other questions. That really makes me ask if I am living in George Orwell's 1984, where everyone uses newspeak and is brainwashed time after time :) And Orwell, to the best of my knowledge, was a leftist too, but he was courageous enough to see how ideology may take a turn towards the darkest sides.

Since I vote democrats (sometimes) for a few causes I consider good (not for all the causes democrats say are good), I personally would never mock a person for voting Trump (cause I don't know all the reasons why he makes Trump important, as he doesn't know all my reasons for voting some democrats).

But we are living in strange times and the strangest of all things is having so many young people to believe that other people will love and educate them better than their own families.

Since we are in the election discussion, I wish to add something.

I have been surprised with CNN, the Guardian, NY Times and a few liberal outlets that seem to have forgotten what they used to write about Kamala Harris just three or two years ago. Whereas three years ago all these outlets seemed to agree that something is really wrong with Kamala Harris (she had a few scandals in her office, she was eclipsed by Biden, she made gaffes and there were times none knew her whereabouts in the White House), now all these liberal outlets post only positive things on Harris and do not make any references to their own old posts about her.

Does any democrat here feel good with that? I mean it seems as CNN, The Guardian, NY Times, etc., have forgotten their older articles on Kamala Harris. Is that normal for you guys or is just the way journalists use to do their work?

(I remember well, by the way, in 2011 when The NY Times ran an article were some Syrians praised ISIS for doing better work in their town than Bashar Al-Asad!!! Just six months or so after that article, I heard again about ISIS. This time isis invaded Iraq and started making videos with human heads being cut. So, I guess that ISIS article in the NY Times, in 2011 or 2012, was a good example of never being enthusiastic about the people these outlets will praise. I better wait to see Kamala in her debates with Trump, before deciding if she deserves my vote.)

I'm an elementary school teacher, and I can tell you the education system was not designed for boys. I incorporate a lot of breaks throughout the day because I know my boys need to get up and move. I've been criticized for this my whole career. I'm told I should teach "bell to bell", but I'm tenured, so fuck those people. I do what I want. My school even banned football, because it led to fighting. I let my boys do it on the sly. — RogueAI

My fuckin' hero! :clap: :cool:

Are parents the real educators of their kids nowadays? — Eros1982

I think so. However, are both parents in the home? or in the daily lives of their children? Are the parents mature, stable, healthy, educated? or immature, unstable, addicts/drunks, mis/un-educated? Are they sectarian or secular? bigoted or cosmopolitan? Is the home run by a single mother raising boys? Etcetera ...

My guess is, having been neither a parent nor teacher, that schools and social media only reinforce, even amplify, what the parental / family home cultivates in children in the first place. Just like getting drunk doesn't make people a-holes, alcohol only takes away the sober inhibition to expose their a-holery. Reactionary culture and politics, imo, is like booze and "boys" learn to be resentful a-holes to a social order increasingly stabilized by 'pro-female' policies and institutions not unlike the single mother / wife-dominated households they were (mis)raised in.

In contemporary (US) society there are at least three institutions in particular which, again imo (never having belonged to any of them myself), mostly tend to (but do not always) feminize males: religion, marriage & prison. Not (primarily) schools – though RogueAI might disagree. Thus, males react violently against the first two and embrace the pack-animal, alpha dominance of the third (à la gang / thug-life ... or as enlisted military).

I really can't imagine a mom telling her daughter Kamala is great and then telling her son Donald is great.

According to exit polls, in 2016 & 2020 more women overall voted for The Clown than against him. In 2022, those same women lost their reproductive healthcare rights; whether or not they still like The Clown, I'm confident most will against him this year to get back what was taken from them, their daughters and even their granddaughters.

That said, some "sons" want a surrogate daddy to rule the country the way their absentee or divorcee fathers did not rule their single mom-dominated homes. Quite a few "sons" are easily triggered by their deep-seated "mommy-issues" which is why jackbooted reaction appeals to many of them as a cartoon-masculine, hyper-caffinated, faux-expression of manhood (e.g. alt-right, incel misogyny & homophobia).

I have been surprised, however, with CNN, the Guardian, NY Times and a few liberal [corporate media] outlets that seem to have forgotten what they used to write about Kamala Harris just three or two years ago. — Eros1982

This hypocrisy doesn't bother me at all because Kamala Harris – in fact, any (moderate) neoliberal candidate for president – is not the clear and present danger to US national security, the constitutional rule of law, all civil rights & the US economy, so the proper emphasis should be on promoting whomever can/will eliminate that danger: DonOLD The NeoFascist Clown.

Roevember is coming! :victory: :mask:

Roevember is coming! :victory: — 180 Proof

This was the most funny part. It sounds like an abortionist revolution being cooked behind the curtail lol

With regard to the other things you said, the only difference between genders in my view is volume, nothing else.

Democrats are right in saying gender does not matter, but they are wrong in using gender in order to gain votes (and they are wrong in implying that genes do not matter as well). History and science can verify that only volume divides the genders, but in the case of genes, that's a kind of prohibited debate at this moment. In the future maybe people and scientists will feel more free to discuss genes.

If my mother is great with numbers and my father great with words, and I am great with numbers too, but weak with words, then there's a big probability that I took after my mom's genes. Schopenhauer, also, loved his dad and hated his mom, but I guess he got his love for the letters from his poetical mom, not from his entrepreneur dad (from the second he inherited enough money to become a great intellectual).

Women and men long for the same things, but with different volumes. A woman may think about sex 12 times a day, a man 270 times. A woman may want to pull the hair of the woman who takes her husband, a man may want to kill that who touches his wife. There may be many women who have higher IQ than Kant or Einstein, but the reason why these women will not become Kant or Einstein in my view is volume (or call it will). Though these women may have enough brain cells, intelligence and skills to become Einstein, if they don't do so, then they somehow lack that "male volume" or "male will" which enable many men to annihilate their egos in order to achieve their goal/task.

That's my view and that's what brain science seems to support. Female and male brains work the same, but male brains seems to consume more energy always ;)

some young women ask me what I think about Trump, before they make any other questions. — Eros1982

I do this too. It's one of the quickest indexes of character I can think of. If I find out someone is a Trump supporter, I keep my distance.

Is anyone considering Jill Stein in this forum?

A few years ago I was thinking to register with the Green Party, but then listened to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and came with the wrong opinion that democrats will fix this country and the whole world (which would follow the US example of Green New Deal).

Now, I have been convinced that the only difference between democrats and republicans is in words; they just use different vocabularies and do the same exact thing (rewarding whomever supports/votes them, with federal money).

Should I consider Stein now or is she another traditional politician whose only concern is to get sponsors and to reward only the people who vote for her? Will her name appear on the ballot in NYS?

Is anyone considering Jill Stein in this forum? — Eros1982

Speaking for myself, I only vote for a third party presidential candidate when living in a state that's safe for either Democrats or Republicans. I live in Washington state so I'll vote for Cornel West this year. In 2020 I lived in Georgia and decided early in 2020 to vote for whomever the Democratic candidate wound up being because polling trends showed Georgia to be a swing state for the first time since 1992. Biden won Georgia and I voted for him (only the second time since 1982 I'd voted for a Democratic candidate for president). As a non-partisan "progressive leftist" (who, like Bernie Sanders and most thoughtful leftists, abhors "identity politics"), I've considered the last sixty years of the Democratic Party policy agenda (i.e. neoliberal sodomy of the working class with lube (less harmful) the lesser evil compared to that of the Republican Party policy agenda (i.e. plutocratic / autocratic sodomy of everybody south of the upper middle class without lube (more harmful)), and therefore I always support the Democratic candidate when I live in a swing state. Btw, in 2016 I voted for Jill Stein because polling trends suggested HRC would lose Georgia (which she did by just over 5%).

This 'biological determinism' is too reductive to be meaningful at the complexity of level social practices and electoral politics. After all, it doesn't explain at all (e.g.) decades of robust male support for democratic market socialism in Scandanavian countries.

Now, I have been convinced that the only difference between democrats and republicans is in words — Eros1982

There are commonalities to the two parties and major differences. Some of the major differences:
- gay/trans rights
- abortion
- subsidies for green energy (majority of Republicans reject the science of climate change)
- raising taxes on rich
- gun control
- environmental regulation
- border control
- immigrants' rights (Dems want amnesty/pathway to citizenship, Repubs want to deport tens of millions of people)
- healthcare
- education (Dems are for public schools, Repubs favor charter schools and vouchers for private school)
- minimum wage

Now, why is it that Biden struggled to get a lot of that done? In our system, if you don't have 60 of your people in the senate, the other side can filibuster and stop legislation, and it's very hard for either party to get 60 senate seats. The last time the Dems had 60 senators, they used their political capital to pass Obamacare, for which they suffered catastrophic losses in the next election.

I have been convinced that the only difference between democrats and republicans is in words — Eros1982

So you’ve settled on the tired, fossilized view — that passes as sophisticated but is in fact lazy and absurd — which absolves you of having to know anything in detail. Not the great progression you think it is.

That view may have been tenable at some point, but it’s simply ridiculous now. The Democratic Party, for all it’s faults (and I have always been critical of them), are radically different than Republicans. Plenty of examples; guns, abortion, climate change, etc. If you can’t see that, you’re not paying attention.

Yes, they mostly agree on military spending — but even that is showing cracks (on both sides) — and apparently in panicking about China, but that hardly makes them “only different in words.”

The destruction of Roe, the Inflation Reduction Act, the raising of corporate taxes, budgetary priorities, appointments of administrative heads (Lina Kahn at FTC, Jennifer Abruzzo at NLRB, Regan at EPA, Gensler at SEC, and so on), appointments to the Supreme Court — these things actually matter. To throw up our hands and say “Well they’re all the same anyway” is just aggressively ignorant.

Edit:



Missed this. :up:

I live in Washington state so I'll vote for Cornel West this year. — 180 Proof

:up: If I lived in a safe state, like Massachusetts, I’d vote for West as well. But since I don’t (I’m in swingy New Hampshire), I’m not throwing my vote away and, mathematically, putting Trump +1, I’ll be voting for the awful Harris. But I envy you.

Funny fact: I met a girl on a dating app and she deleted me after I wrote those things about the Democratic Party lol So, I don't blame you for considering untenable those views.

I just follow some kind of "economical thought processing".

Although I know that I was born a prodigy with very high IQ and gifted stature, same as Don the Clown, and if I wanted I could become Schopenhauer, Einstein, Michael Jackson, Leon Messi, Rocky Marciano, Shakespeare, and so on, life taught me that the whole universe (out of jealousy, surely :) ) would conspire against me.

Hence, though I never doubted myself (for the sake of this debate, you know) I found out that (because the whole universe is jealous about me and about Hillary Clinton) there's a hope that I may achieve a couple of things in this life, but not everything.

That kind of economical thought processing seems totally absent among Democrats and this thing has started to make me suspicious about their intentions in general. Democrats want growth, equality, peace, free education for all, reforms, gun control, better infrastructure, general welfare, thriving American families, women rights, trans rights, Muslim rights, Natives rights, technological progress, control of the space, etc. etc. and their ever expanding list of "priorities" makes me sometimes ask if these people are serious or they just create as many priorities and needs as they can in order to appeal to all those groups who take these "priorities" seriously.

Lately I have started believing that it is a leftist tactic (around the world) to imagine as more needs and problems as you can in order to make more and more people feel that they need to be protected by the leftists. So, if I travel to Luxembourg or San Marino and see how different these countries are from the US, I am sure that a 10 mins talk with a Luxembourghian or Sanmarinian leftist would instill in me the feeling that in Luxembourg and San Marino people have the same problems like here in the States. But that feeling, I insist, will not come from what I see and experience there, but from a political discourse that sounds the same among the politicians around the world.

Though the left traces its history in those workers unions who fought for the working classes in Europe and US, we see how the change in living standards and working ethics has made leftists change priorities as well. It is hard to attain today that leftists care more about EU/US majorities than right wing politicians, for the simple reason that the leftists will keep talking about poverty and working conditions, even though in the 21st century labor has been radically transformed and poverty is not as widespread as it used to be in the beginning of the 20th century. Democrats want to speak about the poor and the rich, forgetting that 70% of people in this country are neither poor nor rich.

But I think I know why they do it now. Most of the people in this country do not care to vote at all and in these circumstances both Democrats and Republicans have discovered that they may keep power through appealing to the few, not to the many. If they really cared about majorities they would set a couple of priorities that majorities seem to care (like crime, inflation and infrastructure) and they wouldn't invent so many needs and priorities.

I lost faith in Democrats when they gave people 3 trillion in covid relief, but they could afford only 800 billion for the infrastructure. They put the blame on the Republicans for that too, but this absence of economical thought processing among the Democrats has started to trouble me.

Not untenable— stupid.

In contemporary (US) society there are at least three institutions in particular which, again imo (never having belonged to any of them myself), mostly tend to (but do not always) feminize males: religion, marriage & prison. — 180 Proof

IMO Christianity does have a more feminine ethic, but this is not the case for Judaism or Islam. Certain branches like Eastern Orthodoxy are more patriarchal. Still, I would say that the Christian ethic as expressed in the gospels could reasonably be considered a more feminine one -- not a weaker one, but a more feminine one.

Yes, interesting, but I was referring to the institution of religion as such (i.e. its social function/s) and not the belief-system or ritual-practices of any particular sect. IMO, active participation in a congregation tends to 'feminize' (i.e. de-emphasize 'masculine' strength, ego, aggression and competition) even though e.g. "Abrahamic & Vedic faiths" are predominantly patriarchal.

What power of authority did Biden have as the presumptive nominee at the exclusion of everybody else? None. He had no power as presumptive nominee especially if at the convention, entirely in line with democratic party rules, his nomination could be taken. The appeal to his primary votes are irrelevant as party rules are also what they voted for. In fact, within their vote is included the possibility the nominee cancels their candidacy, drops dead, becomes ill, mad, is assinated or removed in accordance with party rules. — Benkei

You are focussed on this one word, which really is not important in the scheme of things. Many interesting things are going on in this election and perhaps we can talk about them some time.

[/quote]
The only reason so many people like you are making such a huge issue about it is myopic politics. This is simply not a big deal and anybody who keeps insisting on it make a living out of having dumb opinions.[/quote]

Coup, coup, coup, coup, coup!

I think my problem with this is that it implies that Biden had power or control taken away from him. — Echarmion

But of course he did. You might as well argue the sun rises in the west.

Which in this context (since he's still the President) could only mean his power within the party. — Echarmion

Which is exactly why I used the phrases "palace coup" and "intra-party coup." Making your point for you.

But you are hung up on the word coup. If I call it a coup and you prefer to call it a not-a-coup, I'm fine with that. It's unimportant in the scheme of things. As I told @Benkei, I'm happy to talk about the latest developments in this unprecedented election as we live through this very dangerous moment in history. You can call it a coup or not. I'll keep calling it a coup.

But to me it looks more like Biden's power within his party had been on a downward trajectory for several months, which probably is why he did the early debate in the first place. Which then just rapidly accelerated the collapse of his constituency within the party. — Echarmion

No doubt. But they covered it up in the hopes of swindling the American people. I fervently hope the people will hold them accountable and punish them for it at the ballot box. But it won't happen.

Is there evidence for this? — Echarmion

Yes. Fourteen million voters. Many Biden supporters were reported even in the MSM right to the end. Clyburn and many blacks in fact. I am not sure why you're questioning widely reported facts.

What's the argument here? That Biden is dead? Held hostage in some secret facility? They replaced him with a body double? — Echarmion

All I'm sayin' is I'm not payin' the ransom till I see proof of life.

Did you see him at the hostage press conference? Man has one foot in the grave. And Kamala tossed out word salad and she doesn't even have the excuse of being senile.

Are we really in ancient aliens territory here? — Echarmion

I can't read you the news.

And what would the democratic move have looked like? — Echarmion

Having a competitive 2024 primary so that BIden would have been exposed, and a strong, popular candidate, nominated by democratic means, would have been chosen.

The Dems pulled off their swaparoo. But don't call it democracy. It's anything but. It was a coup -- pardon the word -- by the party insiders.

If that's the argument, then neither are republicans after all the undemocratic shit they pulled since at least Obama's presidency. — Echarmion

Trump was nominated in a spirited and competitive primary. You're just flailing with the rest of it. "But he's ORANGE HITLER, whatabout that??"

That all you've got? Many commentators, not just me, are remarking on the Democrats' highly undemocratic manner of swapping in a new candidate with no popular electoral support whatsoever. Then having the MSM whitewash and scrub her actual record. Then having her avoid press conferences and interviews in the hopes of running another 2020-style basement campaign.

Liberals should be ashamed of supporting this charade.