|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Canada11607 Posts
"This will last for at least 50 years. You'll never have a leak. It's very strong. You couldn't- If you had a knife... I don't want to give anyone ideas... if you had a knife, you can't even cut it, so strong, so powerful rubber. It's beautiful."
Donald J Trump.
|
On June 25 2026 22:46 Billyboy wrote:
One thing to keep in mind for Rayzda is he is from Poland originally and likely old enough to remember what USSR communism was like and it was freaking horrible. Especially when you didn’t live in Moscow or St. Petersburg. So when people talk about communism or socialism that is what he thinks of, not the Nordic countries. Then when he hears moronic tankies talking about how it was mostly or all capitalist propaganda and the USSR was mostly good, he then thinks probably everything they say is wrong. And the sad part is all the reasonable people who just want a more equitable system get lumped in with the moronic tankies.
Nordic countries are not socialist, good welfare system and strong labour unions do not make country socialist.
On June 25 2026 23:11 WombaT wrote:
If Razyda can’t differentiate literal USSR Communism from like, milquetoast capitalism with some redistributive elements that’s on him
I can. You misunderstood my point. What are was saying was that when it comes to democrats, only candidates who describe themselves as socialists (eg: AOC, Mandani), seem to be able to generate some sort of organic excitement.
On June 26 2026 01:33 dyhb wrote:
Trump's frankly obsessive concern with loyalty pulls Republicans behind Trump policies. Who can survive a question like, "I supported Trump when he did it, but I privately disagreed and did nothing, and trust me that I'll do all the good things and none of the bad if I'm elected?" It is difficult for me to imagine anyone but Vance being the nominee, and he's incredibly tied to Trump policies.
bolded: Isnt that, like, what every single politician before election says? Also one would imagine that the answer to this kind of questions would be along the lines: " You should ask president Trump about president Trump policies, my policies are as stated in my campaign." or something similar. I am also not sure if Vance will be candidate (after primaries). It seems to me that most of support he has, is because he is VP of Trump, not because VP is Vance (if that makes sense).
On June 25 2026 22:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2026 17:59 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 14:27 dyhb wrote:On June 25 2026 10:11 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 02:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Democrat's chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus lost their primary to democratic socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier. Mamdani cast Avila Chevalier as the future of the Democratic Party, saying as he announced his endorsement on MS NOW that she will be “on the front lines” of showing that Democrats “have to be fighting for a vision that reckons with the fact that working people were not left behind just four years ago or 16 years ago. They were left behind a long time before that.”
“And it will take a new generation of leadership to ensure that the heartbeat of this party is once again the struggles of the working class,” Mamdani said.
Avila Chevalier is also a vocal critic of Israel, calling its war against Hamas in Gaza a genocide. A Columbia University alumna, she participated in the pro-Palestinian protests at the university and was present during last year’s standoff with police at Hamilton Hall, which she described as “quite horrific.” She also attended a controversial pro-Palestinian rally the day after Hamas’ 2023 attacks in Israel — an event that Brad Lander, the former city comptroller also sporting Mamdani’s endorsement in his congressional bid, condemned.
Avila Chevalier has voiced support for legislation to block certain arms sales to Israel, also known as the “Block the Bombs” bill. She has also called for abolishing ICE, “Medicare for All” and national tenant protections. www.nbcnews.comThat seems like a reasonably significant development regarding US politics? Essentially this means: Unless Democrats go with somethng crazy, like making Hunter their candidate, Republican wins next presidency. Trump has two huge things against him just from election to 2026: The Iran war was started under a mishmash of reasons, and none of the main ones were accomplished + Show Spoiler +Roughly speaking, the toppling of the Iranian regime, retrieval of all nuclear material, demolition of their ballistic missile stockpiles, and *later* permanent reopening of the strait before we freed up Iran to resume selling oil and operating its proxy Hezbollah and using previously frozen assets. That's somewhere between an absolute surrender and 90% of one. The energy crisis and the tariffs have individually and collectively hurt the American economy, and Trump's love of tariffs will likely continue to hurt the economy. I've seen it with talking to Republicans of my acquaintance. Their suppliers are hurting and their bottom lines are hurting and their upstream buyers are hurting. This is unlikely to change before the election in 2028. (If you want to stretch, a third would be the size of the corruption between crypto and Kushner's business and all the other self-dealing which would be too much for me to summarize right now) Democrats will somehow find a way to ruin it, perhaps, like they managed to turn Biden's 2020 win into Biden failing to hand off the reins and oopsie being forced to and Kamala/Biden's 2024 loss. But it's theirs to lose unless something big happens. bolded - this was what I was thinking after Trump election, that next one will go to Democrats by default. Democrats however managed to mess this up: essentially Democrats are now anti Trump or socialists. Socialists - well, yes you have New York and California, but then there are also other states, inhibited by sane people. Anti Trump - "Trump bad" argument is not the one which will work well against "John Smith", if it was Trump first term they would probably won next election, but it isnt. Generally Republicans are in unique position, where their candidate can say "that was Trump, I am different", because Trump is outlier (if for some reason Trump popularity goes up, they can ride this wave). On the other hand, Democrats have no one to vote for. Thats why, semi jokingly, I said Hunter, his recent tweet outburst made him more likeable than entire Democratic party. Both parties will be in this position for the 2028 presidential election. This is typical when a president's second term is ending, since there's no true incumbent running for re-election: The Republican presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Trump's presidency / approach (with Vance possibly having the hardest time distancing himself, if he even wants to). The Democratic presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Biden's presidency / approach (with Harris possibly having the hardest time distancing herself, if she even wants to). Whether or not there is "no one to vote for" is completely subjective and entirely a different subject. Polls this early - years early - are pretty useless indicators of who will do well in the primaries. We'll have to see which platforms each candidate focuses on championing, how they distinguish themselves from their primary opponents, etc.
They not in the same position. Democrats will still be Democrats. Republicans however, as often mentioned here, were taken over by Trump, and are no longer the same republicans they were. Now Trump will be gone, so they will have opportunity to mold themselves into whatever they think will win them election.
|
On June 26 2026 03:03 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +"This will last for at least 50 years. You'll never have a leak. It's very strong. You couldn't- If you had a knife... I don't want to give anyone ideas... if you had a knife, you can't even cut it, so strong, so powerful rubber. It's beautiful." Donald J Trump.
Did he actually say that? I can never tell when people are joking because he says so much incredibly stupid stuff that backfires immediately.
|
On June 26 2026 03:26 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2026 03:03 Falling wrote:"This will last for at least 50 years. You'll never have a leak. It's very strong. You couldn't- If you had a knife... I don't want to give anyone ideas... if you had a knife, you can't even cut it, so strong, so powerful rubber. It's beautiful." Donald J Trump. Did he actually say that? I can never tell when people are joking because he says so much incredibly stupid stuff that backfires immediately.
Yes: https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/cnn-kaitlan-collins-calls-bs-124435831.html
|
On June 26 2026 02:34 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2026 04:34 LightSpectra wrote:
If the contractor weren't a Trump donor picked for blatantly corrupt reasons, we'd probably have a laugh about the algae but it wouldn't be a major scandal.
It's the combination of nepotism, incompetence, and mouth-foaming about Obama that turned it into a disgrace. All of the above. I think any time a government completes a big project and it immediately doesn't work and needs to be redone is scandal worthy. And the algae came back comically fast. Also, maybe he didn't come in with foreign policy experience but building and business contracts is the thing Donald J Trump is supposed to be good at. This is his wheelhouse. And the fact that there were no bids and the contract went to Trump's neighbour and donor, in any normal political world, you own that one. This is a personal screw up without a lot of room to blame the bad boyars. But the Party of Personal Responsibility is out here pointing fingers at mysterious vandals cutting the length of football field, arresting curious gawkers (are the mockers next?  ). It's the wreckers, I tell you, infected by the counter-revolutionary spirit. And oBlade is out here saying the only issue is that it needs to be fixed. The pool is broken. (Ignore how). Fix it. Trump is on the job, ready to fix! erm. It just was 'fixed'. By Trump's guy. And right after it was 'fixed' by Trump's guy, it was broken: algae, liner split, paint peeling. That's the problem. And you think Trump's vandal excuse is reasonable? "Amazin!" JLP. Do you think his claim that together HUSSEIN Obama and Biden spent hundreds of millions on the same pool is also plausible?
Have to post this ANNOTATED this time because blind people are under the misapprehension that vandalism of the "length" you're talking about is physically not possible for some reason, when it literally just happened right next to the pool.
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/zHFXk6CG/Untitled.png)
You are free to "know" that it couldn't have even 1% to do with vandalism. The photo doesn't seem to support such certainty. That massive length of grass? No way they could do that underwater along the edge? No way they could dump fertilizer in to feed algae some delicious be-fruitful-and-multiply nitrates? Seems possible to me but either way if you want to take up this crusade I'm not losing any sleep.
So what is "own it?"
Define "own it."
Shoot the contractor?
Impeach Trump?
Me admit to you ("oBlade is out here" please notice me oBlade) everyone should invent time machines to change their votes based on pool jobs going right the first time?
You work on what you correctly said is a football fields long pool, something can go wrong. Sure. At the human level, at the mechanical level. You put 'fixed' in scare quotes. Why do you think people are 'fixing' it to begin with? Everything was perfect before? They just wanted to install algae machines that don't work and fill it with algae? To have it continue leaking and subsiding in marsh soil for decades? Or you're a suddenly minted pool expert who knows jobs can never have a problem or need follow up? What's so obvious they missed. Or the lack of perfection is the proof. Ever get a filling but need to go back to the dentist again? Like you're running and your shoes get untied, do you blame yourself for awarding a no-bid contract to tie your own shoes?
You know come to think of it I bet nobody has even seen what it looks like today and whether the algae is cleared up, before acting on theoretical rage taken from bluesky marching orders. I certainly haven't checked because I don't live in DC, am employed, and therefore not doing deep dives into shallow pools if they aren't fixed instantly.
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On June 26 2026 03:16 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2026 22:46 Billyboy wrote:
One thing to keep in mind for Rayzda is he is from Poland originally and likely old enough to remember what USSR communism was like and it was freaking horrible. Especially when you didn’t live in Moscow or St. Petersburg. So when people talk about communism or socialism that is what he thinks of, not the Nordic countries. Then when he hears moronic tankies talking about how it was mostly or all capitalist propaganda and the USSR was mostly good, he then thinks probably everything they say is wrong. And the sad part is all the reasonable people who just want a more equitable system get lumped in with the moronic tankies. Nordic countries are not socialist, good welfare system and strong labour unions do not make country socialist. Show nested quote +On June 25 2026 23:11 WombaT wrote:
If Razyda can’t differentiate literal USSR Communism from like, milquetoast capitalism with some redistributive elements that’s on him
I can. You misunderstood my point. What are was saying was that when it comes to democrats, only candidates who describe themselves as socialists (eg: AOC, Mandani), seem to be able to generate some sort of organic excitement. Show nested quote +On June 26 2026 01:33 dyhb wrote:
Trump's frankly obsessive concern with loyalty pulls Republicans behind Trump policies. Who can survive a question like, "I supported Trump when he did it, but I privately disagreed and did nothing, and trust me that I'll do all the good things and none of the bad if I'm elected?" It is difficult for me to imagine anyone but Vance being the nominee, and he's incredibly tied to Trump policies.
bolded: Isnt that, like, what every single politician before election says? Also one would imagine that the answer to this kind of questions would be along the lines: " You should ask president Trump about president Trump policies, my policies are as stated in my campaign." or something similar. I am also not sure if Vance will be candidate (after primaries). It seems to me that most of support he has, is because he is VP of Trump, not because VP is Vance (if that makes sense). Show nested quote +On June 25 2026 22:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2026 17:59 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 14:27 dyhb wrote:On June 25 2026 10:11 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 02:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Democrat's chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus lost their primary to democratic socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier. Mamdani cast Avila Chevalier as the future of the Democratic Party, saying as he announced his endorsement on MS NOW that she will be “on the front lines” of showing that Democrats “have to be fighting for a vision that reckons with the fact that working people were not left behind just four years ago or 16 years ago. They were left behind a long time before that.”
“And it will take a new generation of leadership to ensure that the heartbeat of this party is once again the struggles of the working class,” Mamdani said.
Avila Chevalier is also a vocal critic of Israel, calling its war against Hamas in Gaza a genocide. A Columbia University alumna, she participated in the pro-Palestinian protests at the university and was present during last year’s standoff with police at Hamilton Hall, which she described as “quite horrific.” She also attended a controversial pro-Palestinian rally the day after Hamas’ 2023 attacks in Israel — an event that Brad Lander, the former city comptroller also sporting Mamdani’s endorsement in his congressional bid, condemned.
Avila Chevalier has voiced support for legislation to block certain arms sales to Israel, also known as the “Block the Bombs” bill. She has also called for abolishing ICE, “Medicare for All” and national tenant protections. www.nbcnews.comThat seems like a reasonably significant development regarding US politics? Essentially this means: Unless Democrats go with somethng crazy, like making Hunter their candidate, Republican wins next presidency. Trump has two huge things against him just from election to 2026: The Iran war was started under a mishmash of reasons, and none of the main ones were accomplished + Show Spoiler +Roughly speaking, the toppling of the Iranian regime, retrieval of all nuclear material, demolition of their ballistic missile stockpiles, and *later* permanent reopening of the strait before we freed up Iran to resume selling oil and operating its proxy Hezbollah and using previously frozen assets. That's somewhere between an absolute surrender and 90% of one. The energy crisis and the tariffs have individually and collectively hurt the American economy, and Trump's love of tariffs will likely continue to hurt the economy. I've seen it with talking to Republicans of my acquaintance. Their suppliers are hurting and their bottom lines are hurting and their upstream buyers are hurting. This is unlikely to change before the election in 2028. (If you want to stretch, a third would be the size of the corruption between crypto and Kushner's business and all the other self-dealing which would be too much for me to summarize right now) Democrats will somehow find a way to ruin it, perhaps, like they managed to turn Biden's 2020 win into Biden failing to hand off the reins and oopsie being forced to and Kamala/Biden's 2024 loss. But it's theirs to lose unless something big happens. bolded - this was what I was thinking after Trump election, that next one will go to Democrats by default. Democrats however managed to mess this up: essentially Democrats are now anti Trump or socialists. Socialists - well, yes you have New York and California, but then there are also other states, inhibited by sane people. Anti Trump - "Trump bad" argument is not the one which will work well against "John Smith", if it was Trump first term they would probably won next election, but it isnt. Generally Republicans are in unique position, where their candidate can say "that was Trump, I am different", because Trump is outlier (if for some reason Trump popularity goes up, they can ride this wave). On the other hand, Democrats have no one to vote for. Thats why, semi jokingly, I said Hunter, his recent tweet outburst made him more likeable than entire Democratic party. Both parties will be in this position for the 2028 presidential election. This is typical when a president's second term is ending, since there's no true incumbent running for re-election: The Republican presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Trump's presidency / approach (with Vance possibly having the hardest time distancing himself, if he even wants to). The Democratic presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Biden's presidency / approach (with Harris possibly having the hardest time distancing herself, if she even wants to). Whether or not there is "no one to vote for" is completely subjective and entirely a different subject. Polls this early - years early - are pretty useless indicators of who will do well in the primaries. We'll have to see which platforms each candidate focuses on championing, how they distinguish themselves from their primary opponents, etc. They not in the same position. Democrats will still be Democrats. Republicans however, as often mentioned here, were taken over by Trump, and are no longer the same republicans they were. Now Trump will be gone, so they will have opportunity to mold themselves into whatever they think will win them election.
Then maybe don’t call politicians who blatantly aren’t socialists, socialists then?
You can’t have your fucking cake and eat it too, you said right up this page that the Dems are either ‘anti-Trump’ or socialist’ and about half an hour later are saying ‘actually something like the Nordic model isn’t socialism’
Is it any fucking wonder politicians and think tanks are confused?
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On June 26 2026 03:36 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2026 02:34 Falling wrote:On June 24 2026 04:34 LightSpectra wrote:
If the contractor weren't a Trump donor picked for blatantly corrupt reasons, we'd probably have a laugh about the algae but it wouldn't be a major scandal.
It's the combination of nepotism, incompetence, and mouth-foaming about Obama that turned it into a disgrace. All of the above. I think any time a government completes a big project and it immediately doesn't work and needs to be redone is scandal worthy. And the algae came back comically fast. Also, maybe he didn't come in with foreign policy experience but building and business contracts is the thing Donald J Trump is supposed to be good at. This is his wheelhouse. And the fact that there were no bids and the contract went to Trump's neighbour and donor, in any normal political world, you own that one. This is a personal screw up without a lot of room to blame the bad boyars. But the Party of Personal Responsibility is out here pointing fingers at mysterious vandals cutting the length of football field, arresting curious gawkers (are the mockers next? ). It's the wreckers, I tell you, infected by the counter-revolutionary spirit. And oBlade is out here saying the only issue is that it needs to be fixed. The pool is broken. (Ignore how). Fix it. Trump is on the job, ready to fix! erm. It just was 'fixed'. By Trump's guy. And right after it was 'fixed' by Trump's guy, it was broken: algae, liner split, paint peeling. That's the problem. And you think Trump's vandal excuse is reasonable? "Amazin!" JLP. Do you think his claim that together HUSSEIN Obama and Biden spent hundreds of millions on the same pool is also plausible? Have to post this ANNOTATED this time because blind people are under the misapprehension that vandalism of the "length" you're talking about is physically not possible for some reason, when it literally just happened right next to the pool. You are free to "know" that it couldn't have even 1% to do with vandalism. The photo doesn't seem to support such certainty. That massive length of grass? No way they could do that underwater along the edge? No way they could dump fertilizer in to feed algae some delicious be-fruitful-and-multiply nitrates? Seems possible to me but either way if you want to take up this crusade I'm not losing any sleep. So what is "own it?" Define "own it." Shoot the contractor? Impeach Trump? Me admit to you ("oBlade is out here" please notice me oBlade) everyone should invent time machines to change their votes based on pool jobs going right the first time? You work on what you correctly said is a football fields long pool, something can go wrong. Sure. At the human level, at the mechanical level. You put 'fixed' in scare quotes. Why do you think people are 'fixing' it to begin with? Everything was perfect before? They just wanted to install algae machines that don't work and fill it with algae? To have it continue leaking and subsiding in marsh soil for decades? Or you're a suddenly minted pool expert who knows jobs can never have a problem or need follow up? What's so obvious they missed. Or the lack of perfection is the proof. Ever get a filling but need to go back to the dentist again? Like you're running and your shoes get untied, do you blame yourself for awarding a no-bid contract to tie your own shoes?
Do you get some kind of kick out of embarrassing yourself or are you that oblivious?
|
On June 26 2026 03:43 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2026 03:36 oBlade wrote:On June 26 2026 02:34 Falling wrote:On June 24 2026 04:34 LightSpectra wrote:
If the contractor weren't a Trump donor picked for blatantly corrupt reasons, we'd probably have a laugh about the algae but it wouldn't be a major scandal.
It's the combination of nepotism, incompetence, and mouth-foaming about Obama that turned it into a disgrace. All of the above. I think any time a government completes a big project and it immediately doesn't work and needs to be redone is scandal worthy. And the algae came back comically fast. Also, maybe he didn't come in with foreign policy experience but building and business contracts is the thing Donald J Trump is supposed to be good at. This is his wheelhouse. And the fact that there were no bids and the contract went to Trump's neighbour and donor, in any normal political world, you own that one. This is a personal screw up without a lot of room to blame the bad boyars. But the Party of Personal Responsibility is out here pointing fingers at mysterious vandals cutting the length of football field, arresting curious gawkers (are the mockers next? ). It's the wreckers, I tell you, infected by the counter-revolutionary spirit. And oBlade is out here saying the only issue is that it needs to be fixed. The pool is broken. (Ignore how). Fix it. Trump is on the job, ready to fix! erm. It just was 'fixed'. By Trump's guy. And right after it was 'fixed' by Trump's guy, it was broken: algae, liner split, paint peeling. That's the problem. And you think Trump's vandal excuse is reasonable? "Amazin!" JLP. Do you think his claim that together HUSSEIN Obama and Biden spent hundreds of millions on the same pool is also plausible? Have to post this ANNOTATED this time because blind people are under the misapprehension that vandalism of the "length" you're talking about is physically not possible for some reason, when it literally just happened right next to the pool. You are free to "know" that it couldn't have even 1% to do with vandalism. The photo doesn't seem to support such certainty. That massive length of grass? No way they could do that underwater along the edge? No way they could dump fertilizer in to feed algae some delicious be-fruitful-and-multiply nitrates? Seems possible to me but either way if you want to take up this crusade I'm not losing any sleep. So what is "own it?" Define "own it." Shoot the contractor? Impeach Trump? Me admit to you ("oBlade is out here" please notice me oBlade) everyone should invent time machines to change their votes based on pool jobs going right the first time? You work on what you correctly said is a football fields long pool, something can go wrong. Sure. At the human level, at the mechanical level. You put 'fixed' in scare quotes. Why do you think people are 'fixing' it to begin with? Everything was perfect before? They just wanted to install algae machines that don't work and fill it with algae? To have it continue leaking and subsiding in marsh soil for decades? Or you're a suddenly minted pool expert who knows jobs can never have a problem or need follow up? What's so obvious they missed. Or the lack of perfection is the proof. Ever get a filling but need to go back to the dentist again? Like you're running and your shoes get untied, do you blame yourself for awarding a no-bid contract to tie your own shoes? Do you get some kind of kick out of embarrassing yourself or are you that oblivious?
Algae escaping from the reflecting pool to write "86 47" big enough to be visible from an airplane is a bigger crisis than we could ever imagine.
On June 26 2026 03:41 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2026 03:16 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 22:46 Billyboy wrote:
One thing to keep in mind for Rayzda is he is from Poland originally and likely old enough to remember what USSR communism was like and it was freaking horrible. Especially when you didn’t live in Moscow or St. Petersburg. So when people talk about communism or socialism that is what he thinks of, not the Nordic countries. Then when he hears moronic tankies talking about how it was mostly or all capitalist propaganda and the USSR was mostly good, he then thinks probably everything they say is wrong. And the sad part is all the reasonable people who just want a more equitable system get lumped in with the moronic tankies. Nordic countries are not socialist, good welfare system and strong labour unions do not make country socialist. On June 25 2026 23:11 WombaT wrote:
If Razyda can’t differentiate literal USSR Communism from like, milquetoast capitalism with some redistributive elements that’s on him
I can. You misunderstood my point. What are was saying was that when it comes to democrats, only candidates who describe themselves as socialists (eg: AOC, Mandani), seem to be able to generate some sort of organic excitement. On June 26 2026 01:33 dyhb wrote:
Trump's frankly obsessive concern with loyalty pulls Republicans behind Trump policies. Who can survive a question like, "I supported Trump when he did it, but I privately disagreed and did nothing, and trust me that I'll do all the good things and none of the bad if I'm elected?" It is difficult for me to imagine anyone but Vance being the nominee, and he's incredibly tied to Trump policies.
bolded: Isnt that, like, what every single politician before election says? Also one would imagine that the answer to this kind of questions would be along the lines: " You should ask president Trump about president Trump policies, my policies are as stated in my campaign." or something similar. I am also not sure if Vance will be candidate (after primaries). It seems to me that most of support he has, is because he is VP of Trump, not because VP is Vance (if that makes sense). On June 25 2026 22:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2026 17:59 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 14:27 dyhb wrote:On June 25 2026 10:11 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 02:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Democrat's chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus lost their primary to democratic socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier. Mamdani cast Avila Chevalier as the future of the Democratic Party, saying as he announced his endorsement on MS NOW that she will be “on the front lines” of showing that Democrats “have to be fighting for a vision that reckons with the fact that working people were not left behind just four years ago or 16 years ago. They were left behind a long time before that.”
“And it will take a new generation of leadership to ensure that the heartbeat of this party is once again the struggles of the working class,” Mamdani said.
Avila Chevalier is also a vocal critic of Israel, calling its war against Hamas in Gaza a genocide. A Columbia University alumna, she participated in the pro-Palestinian protests at the university and was present during last year’s standoff with police at Hamilton Hall, which she described as “quite horrific.” She also attended a controversial pro-Palestinian rally the day after Hamas’ 2023 attacks in Israel — an event that Brad Lander, the former city comptroller also sporting Mamdani’s endorsement in his congressional bid, condemned.
Avila Chevalier has voiced support for legislation to block certain arms sales to Israel, also known as the “Block the Bombs” bill. She has also called for abolishing ICE, “Medicare for All” and national tenant protections. www.nbcnews.comThat seems like a reasonably significant development regarding US politics? Essentially this means: Unless Democrats go with somethng crazy, like making Hunter their candidate, Republican wins next presidency. Trump has two huge things against him just from election to 2026: The Iran war was started under a mishmash of reasons, and none of the main ones were accomplished + Show Spoiler +Roughly speaking, the toppling of the Iranian regime, retrieval of all nuclear material, demolition of their ballistic missile stockpiles, and *later* permanent reopening of the strait before we freed up Iran to resume selling oil and operating its proxy Hezbollah and using previously frozen assets. That's somewhere between an absolute surrender and 90% of one. The energy crisis and the tariffs have individually and collectively hurt the American economy, and Trump's love of tariffs will likely continue to hurt the economy. I've seen it with talking to Republicans of my acquaintance. Their suppliers are hurting and their bottom lines are hurting and their upstream buyers are hurting. This is unlikely to change before the election in 2028. (If you want to stretch, a third would be the size of the corruption between crypto and Kushner's business and all the other self-dealing which would be too much for me to summarize right now) Democrats will somehow find a way to ruin it, perhaps, like they managed to turn Biden's 2020 win into Biden failing to hand off the reins and oopsie being forced to and Kamala/Biden's 2024 loss. But it's theirs to lose unless something big happens. bolded - this was what I was thinking after Trump election, that next one will go to Democrats by default. Democrats however managed to mess this up: essentially Democrats are now anti Trump or socialists. Socialists - well, yes you have New York and California, but then there are also other states, inhibited by sane people. Anti Trump - "Trump bad" argument is not the one which will work well against "John Smith", if it was Trump first term they would probably won next election, but it isnt. Generally Republicans are in unique position, where their candidate can say "that was Trump, I am different", because Trump is outlier (if for some reason Trump popularity goes up, they can ride this wave). On the other hand, Democrats have no one to vote for. Thats why, semi jokingly, I said Hunter, his recent tweet outburst made him more likeable than entire Democratic party. Both parties will be in this position for the 2028 presidential election. This is typical when a president's second term is ending, since there's no true incumbent running for re-election: The Republican presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Trump's presidency / approach (with Vance possibly having the hardest time distancing himself, if he even wants to). The Democratic presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Biden's presidency / approach (with Harris possibly having the hardest time distancing herself, if she even wants to). Whether or not there is "no one to vote for" is completely subjective and entirely a different subject. Polls this early - years early - are pretty useless indicators of who will do well in the primaries. We'll have to see which platforms each candidate focuses on championing, how they distinguish themselves from their primary opponents, etc. They not in the same position. Democrats will still be Democrats. Republicans however, as often mentioned here, were taken over by Trump, and are no longer the same republicans they were. Now Trump will be gone, so they will have opportunity to mold themselves into whatever they think will win them election. Then maybe don’t call politicians who blatantly aren’t socialists, socialists then? You can’t have your fucking cake and eat it too, you said right up this page that the Dems are either ‘anti-Trump’ or socialist’ and about half an hour later are saying ‘actually something like the Nordic model isn’t socialism’ Is it any fucking wonder politicians and think tanks are confused?
in meme format
|
On June 26 2026 03:16 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2026 22:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2026 17:59 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 14:27 dyhb wrote:On June 25 2026 10:11 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 02:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Democrat's chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus lost their primary to democratic socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier. Mamdani cast Avila Chevalier as the future of the Democratic Party, saying as he announced his endorsement on MS NOW that she will be “on the front lines” of showing that Democrats “have to be fighting for a vision that reckons with the fact that working people were not left behind just four years ago or 16 years ago. They were left behind a long time before that.”
“And it will take a new generation of leadership to ensure that the heartbeat of this party is once again the struggles of the working class,” Mamdani said.
Avila Chevalier is also a vocal critic of Israel, calling its war against Hamas in Gaza a genocide. A Columbia University alumna, she participated in the pro-Palestinian protests at the university and was present during last year’s standoff with police at Hamilton Hall, which she described as “quite horrific.” She also attended a controversial pro-Palestinian rally the day after Hamas’ 2023 attacks in Israel — an event that Brad Lander, the former city comptroller also sporting Mamdani’s endorsement in his congressional bid, condemned.
Avila Chevalier has voiced support for legislation to block certain arms sales to Israel, also known as the “Block the Bombs” bill. She has also called for abolishing ICE, “Medicare for All” and national tenant protections. www.nbcnews.comThat seems like a reasonably significant development regarding US politics? Essentially this means: Unless Democrats go with somethng crazy, like making Hunter their candidate, Republican wins next presidency. Trump has two huge things against him just from election to 2026: The Iran war was started under a mishmash of reasons, and none of the main ones were accomplished + Show Spoiler +Roughly speaking, the toppling of the Iranian regime, retrieval of all nuclear material, demolition of their ballistic missile stockpiles, and *later* permanent reopening of the strait before we freed up Iran to resume selling oil and operating its proxy Hezbollah and using previously frozen assets. That's somewhere between an absolute surrender and 90% of one. The energy crisis and the tariffs have individually and collectively hurt the American economy, and Trump's love of tariffs will likely continue to hurt the economy. I've seen it with talking to Republicans of my acquaintance. Their suppliers are hurting and their bottom lines are hurting and their upstream buyers are hurting. This is unlikely to change before the election in 2028. (If you want to stretch, a third would be the size of the corruption between crypto and Kushner's business and all the other self-dealing which would be too much for me to summarize right now) Democrats will somehow find a way to ruin it, perhaps, like they managed to turn Biden's 2020 win into Biden failing to hand off the reins and oopsie being forced to and Kamala/Biden's 2024 loss. But it's theirs to lose unless something big happens. bolded - this was what I was thinking after Trump election, that next one will go to Democrats by default. Democrats however managed to mess this up: essentially Democrats are now anti Trump or socialists. Socialists - well, yes you have New York and California, but then there are also other states, inhibited by sane people. Anti Trump - "Trump bad" argument is not the one which will work well against "John Smith", if it was Trump first term they would probably won next election, but it isnt. Generally Republicans are in unique position, where their candidate can say "that was Trump, I am different", because Trump is outlier (if for some reason Trump popularity goes up, they can ride this wave). On the other hand, Democrats have no one to vote for. Thats why, semi jokingly, I said Hunter, his recent tweet outburst made him more likeable than entire Democratic party. Both parties will be in this position for the 2028 presidential election. This is typical when a president's second term is ending, since there's no true incumbent running for re-election: The Republican presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Trump's presidency / approach (with Vance possibly having the hardest time distancing himself, if he even wants to). The Democratic presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Biden's presidency / approach (with Harris possibly having the hardest time distancing herself, if she even wants to). Whether or not there is "no one to vote for" is completely subjective and entirely a different subject. Polls this early - years early - are pretty useless indicators of who will do well in the primaries. We'll have to see which platforms each candidate focuses on championing, how they distinguish themselves from their primary opponents, etc. They not in the same position. Democrats will still be Democrats. Republicans however, as often mentioned here, were taken over by Trump, and are no longer the same republicans they were. Now Trump will be gone, so they will have opportunity to mold themselves into whatever they think will win them election.
Democrats will still be Democrats, sure, but I could just as easily assert that Republicans will still be Republicans too. Besides "draining the swamp", Trump's messages and policy positions were already pretty core Republican values. Be racist. Be sexist. Be xenophobic. Be anti-science. Be anti-education. Blame immigrants. Blame the LGBTQ+ community. Blame the poor. Help the rich. Pretend to be against taxes while creating taxes. Push for (their version of) Christianity. Push against reproductive rights. Love America but hate Americans. The usual Republican talking points, although I guess he didn't talk too much about guns / the second amendment. But there's no way that 2028 Republicans are going to give up all these overlapping interests; they just might not be as charismatically deranged and rated R and felonious as Trump was, when they repeat these lines.
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On June 26 2026 03:46 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2026 03:43 WombaT wrote:On June 26 2026 03:36 oBlade wrote:On June 26 2026 02:34 Falling wrote:On June 24 2026 04:34 LightSpectra wrote:
If the contractor weren't a Trump donor picked for blatantly corrupt reasons, we'd probably have a laugh about the algae but it wouldn't be a major scandal.
It's the combination of nepotism, incompetence, and mouth-foaming about Obama that turned it into a disgrace. All of the above. I think any time a government completes a big project and it immediately doesn't work and needs to be redone is scandal worthy. And the algae came back comically fast. Also, maybe he didn't come in with foreign policy experience but building and business contracts is the thing Donald J Trump is supposed to be good at. This is his wheelhouse. And the fact that there were no bids and the contract went to Trump's neighbour and donor, in any normal political world, you own that one. This is a personal screw up without a lot of room to blame the bad boyars. But the Party of Personal Responsibility is out here pointing fingers at mysterious vandals cutting the length of football field, arresting curious gawkers (are the mockers next? ). It's the wreckers, I tell you, infected by the counter-revolutionary spirit. And oBlade is out here saying the only issue is that it needs to be fixed. The pool is broken. (Ignore how). Fix it. Trump is on the job, ready to fix! erm. It just was 'fixed'. By Trump's guy. And right after it was 'fixed' by Trump's guy, it was broken: algae, liner split, paint peeling. That's the problem. And you think Trump's vandal excuse is reasonable? "Amazin!" JLP. Do you think his claim that together HUSSEIN Obama and Biden spent hundreds of millions on the same pool is also plausible? Have to post this ANNOTATED this time because blind people are under the misapprehension that vandalism of the "length" you're talking about is physically not possible for some reason, when it literally just happened right next to the pool. You are free to "know" that it couldn't have even 1% to do with vandalism. The photo doesn't seem to support such certainty. That massive length of grass? No way they could do that underwater along the edge? No way they could dump fertilizer in to feed algae some delicious be-fruitful-and-multiply nitrates? Seems possible to me but either way if you want to take up this crusade I'm not losing any sleep. So what is "own it?" Define "own it." Shoot the contractor? Impeach Trump? Me admit to you ("oBlade is out here" please notice me oBlade) everyone should invent time machines to change their votes based on pool jobs going right the first time? You work on what you correctly said is a football fields long pool, something can go wrong. Sure. At the human level, at the mechanical level. You put 'fixed' in scare quotes. Why do you think people are 'fixing' it to begin with? Everything was perfect before? They just wanted to install algae machines that don't work and fill it with algae? To have it continue leaking and subsiding in marsh soil for decades? Or you're a suddenly minted pool expert who knows jobs can never have a problem or need follow up? What's so obvious they missed. Or the lack of perfection is the proof. Ever get a filling but need to go back to the dentist again? Like you're running and your shoes get untied, do you blame yourself for awarding a no-bid contract to tie your own shoes? Do you get some kind of kick out of embarrassing yourself or are you that oblivious? Algae escaping from the reflecting pool to write "86 47" big enough to be visible from an airplane is a bigger crisis than we could ever imagine. Show nested quote +On June 26 2026 03:41 WombaT wrote:On June 26 2026 03:16 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 22:46 Billyboy wrote:
One thing to keep in mind for Rayzda is he is from Poland originally and likely old enough to remember what USSR communism was like and it was freaking horrible. Especially when you didn’t live in Moscow or St. Petersburg. So when people talk about communism or socialism that is what he thinks of, not the Nordic countries. Then when he hears moronic tankies talking about how it was mostly or all capitalist propaganda and the USSR was mostly good, he then thinks probably everything they say is wrong. And the sad part is all the reasonable people who just want a more equitable system get lumped in with the moronic tankies. Nordic countries are not socialist, good welfare system and strong labour unions do not make country socialist. On June 25 2026 23:11 WombaT wrote:
If Razyda can’t differentiate literal USSR Communism from like, milquetoast capitalism with some redistributive elements that’s on him
I can. You misunderstood my point. What are was saying was that when it comes to democrats, only candidates who describe themselves as socialists (eg: AOC, Mandani), seem to be able to generate some sort of organic excitement. On June 26 2026 01:33 dyhb wrote:
Trump's frankly obsessive concern with loyalty pulls Republicans behind Trump policies. Who can survive a question like, "I supported Trump when he did it, but I privately disagreed and did nothing, and trust me that I'll do all the good things and none of the bad if I'm elected?" It is difficult for me to imagine anyone but Vance being the nominee, and he's incredibly tied to Trump policies.
bolded: Isnt that, like, what every single politician before election says? Also one would imagine that the answer to this kind of questions would be along the lines: " You should ask president Trump about president Trump policies, my policies are as stated in my campaign." or something similar. I am also not sure if Vance will be candidate (after primaries). It seems to me that most of support he has, is because he is VP of Trump, not because VP is Vance (if that makes sense). On June 25 2026 22:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2026 17:59 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 14:27 dyhb wrote:On June 25 2026 10:11 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 02:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Democrat's chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus lost their primary to democratic socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier. Mamdani cast Avila Chevalier as the future of the Democratic Party, saying as he announced his endorsement on MS NOW that she will be “on the front lines” of showing that Democrats “have to be fighting for a vision that reckons with the fact that working people were not left behind just four years ago or 16 years ago. They were left behind a long time before that.”
“And it will take a new generation of leadership to ensure that the heartbeat of this party is once again the struggles of the working class,” Mamdani said.
Avila Chevalier is also a vocal critic of Israel, calling its war against Hamas in Gaza a genocide. A Columbia University alumna, she participated in the pro-Palestinian protests at the university and was present during last year’s standoff with police at Hamilton Hall, which she described as “quite horrific.” She also attended a controversial pro-Palestinian rally the day after Hamas’ 2023 attacks in Israel — an event that Brad Lander, the former city comptroller also sporting Mamdani’s endorsement in his congressional bid, condemned.
Avila Chevalier has voiced support for legislation to block certain arms sales to Israel, also known as the “Block the Bombs” bill. She has also called for abolishing ICE, “Medicare for All” and national tenant protections. www.nbcnews.comThat seems like a reasonably significant development regarding US politics? Essentially this means: Unless Democrats go with somethng crazy, like making Hunter their candidate, Republican wins next presidency. Trump has two huge things against him just from election to 2026: The Iran war was started under a mishmash of reasons, and none of the main ones were accomplished + Show Spoiler +Roughly speaking, the toppling of the Iranian regime, retrieval of all nuclear material, demolition of their ballistic missile stockpiles, and *later* permanent reopening of the strait before we freed up Iran to resume selling oil and operating its proxy Hezbollah and using previously frozen assets. That's somewhere between an absolute surrender and 90% of one. The energy crisis and the tariffs have individually and collectively hurt the American economy, and Trump's love of tariffs will likely continue to hurt the economy. I've seen it with talking to Republicans of my acquaintance. Their suppliers are hurting and their bottom lines are hurting and their upstream buyers are hurting. This is unlikely to change before the election in 2028. (If you want to stretch, a third would be the size of the corruption between crypto and Kushner's business and all the other self-dealing which would be too much for me to summarize right now) Democrats will somehow find a way to ruin it, perhaps, like they managed to turn Biden's 2020 win into Biden failing to hand off the reins and oopsie being forced to and Kamala/Biden's 2024 loss. But it's theirs to lose unless something big happens. bolded - this was what I was thinking after Trump election, that next one will go to Democrats by default. Democrats however managed to mess this up: essentially Democrats are now anti Trump or socialists. Socialists - well, yes you have New York and California, but then there are also other states, inhibited by sane people. Anti Trump - "Trump bad" argument is not the one which will work well against "John Smith", if it was Trump first term they would probably won next election, but it isnt. Generally Republicans are in unique position, where their candidate can say "that was Trump, I am different", because Trump is outlier (if for some reason Trump popularity goes up, they can ride this wave). On the other hand, Democrats have no one to vote for. Thats why, semi jokingly, I said Hunter, his recent tweet outburst made him more likeable than entire Democratic party. Both parties will be in this position for the 2028 presidential election. This is typical when a president's second term is ending, since there's no true incumbent running for re-election: The Republican presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Trump's presidency / approach (with Vance possibly having the hardest time distancing himself, if he even wants to). The Democratic presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Biden's presidency / approach (with Harris possibly having the hardest time distancing herself, if she even wants to). Whether or not there is "no one to vote for" is completely subjective and entirely a different subject. Polls this early - years early - are pretty useless indicators of who will do well in the primaries. We'll have to see which platforms each candidate focuses on championing, how they distinguish themselves from their primary opponents, etc. They not in the same position. Democrats will still be Democrats. Republicans however, as often mentioned here, were taken over by Trump, and are no longer the same republicans they were. Now Trump will be gone, so they will have opportunity to mold themselves into whatever they think will win them election. Then maybe don’t call politicians who blatantly aren’t socialists, socialists then? You can’t have your fucking cake and eat it too, you said right up this page that the Dems are either ‘anti-Trump’ or socialist’ and about half an hour later are saying ‘actually something like the Nordic model isn’t socialism’ Is it any fucking wonder politicians and think tanks are confused? in meme format
Forever a classic.
|
|
|
On June 26 2026 03:16 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2026 01:33 dyhb wrote:
Trump's frankly obsessive concern with loyalty pulls Republicans behind Trump policies. Who can survive a question like, "I supported Trump when he did it, but I privately disagreed and did nothing, and trust me that I'll do all the good things and none of the bad if I'm elected?" It is difficult for me to imagine anyone but Vance being the nominee, and he's incredibly tied to Trump policies.
bolded: Isnt that, like, what every single politician before election says? Also one would imagine that the answer to this kind of questions would be along the lines: " You should ask president Trump about president Trump policies, my policies are as stated in my campaign." or something similar. I am also not sure if Vance will be candidate (after primaries). It seems to me that most of support he has, is because he is VP of Trump, not because VP is Vance (if that makes sense). Voters don't like it. Just assuming that stuff like the Iran deal and tariffs are still unpopular in 2028 as they are now, they're tied to the upper members of the administration and anybody in Congress that championed it. "If you knew they did harm and hurt America, why didn't you make your stand there and theaten to resign/resign?" Politicians try to distance themselves from their unpopular predecessors, that is true, but they typically fail. Success is typically due to the candidate already having distance from the unpopular predecessor.
Don't underrate how much Trump will disparage any successor that openly distances himself from the record and agenda.
|
On June 26 2026 03:41 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2026 03:16 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 22:46 Billyboy wrote:
One thing to keep in mind for Rayzda is he is from Poland originally and likely old enough to remember what USSR communism was like and it was freaking horrible. Especially when you didn’t live in Moscow or St. Petersburg. So when people talk about communism or socialism that is what he thinks of, not the Nordic countries. Then when he hears moronic tankies talking about how it was mostly or all capitalist propaganda and the USSR was mostly good, he then thinks probably everything they say is wrong. And the sad part is all the reasonable people who just want a more equitable system get lumped in with the moronic tankies. Nordic countries are not socialist, good welfare system and strong labour unions do not make country socialist. On June 25 2026 23:11 WombaT wrote:
If Razyda can’t differentiate literal USSR Communism from like, milquetoast capitalism with some redistributive elements that’s on him
I can. You misunderstood my point. What are was saying was that when it comes to democrats, only candidates who describe themselves as socialists (eg: AOC, Mandani), seem to be able to generate some sort of organic excitement. On June 26 2026 01:33 dyhb wrote:
Trump's frankly obsessive concern with loyalty pulls Republicans behind Trump policies. Who can survive a question like, "I supported Trump when he did it, but I privately disagreed and did nothing, and trust me that I'll do all the good things and none of the bad if I'm elected?" It is difficult for me to imagine anyone but Vance being the nominee, and he's incredibly tied to Trump policies.
bolded: Isnt that, like, what every single politician before election says? Also one would imagine that the answer to this kind of questions would be along the lines: " You should ask president Trump about president Trump policies, my policies are as stated in my campaign." or something similar. I am also not sure if Vance will be candidate (after primaries). It seems to me that most of support he has, is because he is VP of Trump, not because VP is Vance (if that makes sense). On June 25 2026 22:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2026 17:59 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 14:27 dyhb wrote:On June 25 2026 10:11 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 02:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Democrat's chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus lost their primary to democratic socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier. Mamdani cast Avila Chevalier as the future of the Democratic Party, saying as he announced his endorsement on MS NOW that she will be “on the front lines” of showing that Democrats “have to be fighting for a vision that reckons with the fact that working people were not left behind just four years ago or 16 years ago. They were left behind a long time before that.”
“And it will take a new generation of leadership to ensure that the heartbeat of this party is once again the struggles of the working class,” Mamdani said.
Avila Chevalier is also a vocal critic of Israel, calling its war against Hamas in Gaza a genocide. A Columbia University alumna, she participated in the pro-Palestinian protests at the university and was present during last year’s standoff with police at Hamilton Hall, which she described as “quite horrific.” She also attended a controversial pro-Palestinian rally the day after Hamas’ 2023 attacks in Israel — an event that Brad Lander, the former city comptroller also sporting Mamdani’s endorsement in his congressional bid, condemned.
Avila Chevalier has voiced support for legislation to block certain arms sales to Israel, also known as the “Block the Bombs” bill. She has also called for abolishing ICE, “Medicare for All” and national tenant protections. www.nbcnews.comThat seems like a reasonably significant development regarding US politics? Essentially this means: Unless Democrats go with somethng crazy, like making Hunter their candidate, Republican wins next presidency. Trump has two huge things against him just from election to 2026: The Iran war was started under a mishmash of reasons, and none of the main ones were accomplished + Show Spoiler +Roughly speaking, the toppling of the Iranian regime, retrieval of all nuclear material, demolition of their ballistic missile stockpiles, and *later* permanent reopening of the strait before we freed up Iran to resume selling oil and operating its proxy Hezbollah and using previously frozen assets. That's somewhere between an absolute surrender and 90% of one. The energy crisis and the tariffs have individually and collectively hurt the American economy, and Trump's love of tariffs will likely continue to hurt the economy. I've seen it with talking to Republicans of my acquaintance. Their suppliers are hurting and their bottom lines are hurting and their upstream buyers are hurting. This is unlikely to change before the election in 2028. (If you want to stretch, a third would be the size of the corruption between crypto and Kushner's business and all the other self-dealing which would be too much for me to summarize right now) Democrats will somehow find a way to ruin it, perhaps, like they managed to turn Biden's 2020 win into Biden failing to hand off the reins and oopsie being forced to and Kamala/Biden's 2024 loss. But it's theirs to lose unless something big happens. bolded - this was what I was thinking after Trump election, that next one will go to Democrats by default. Democrats however managed to mess this up: essentially Democrats are now anti Trump or socialists. Socialists - well, yes you have New York and California, but then there are also other states, inhibited by sane people. Anti Trump - "Trump bad" argument is not the one which will work well against "John Smith", if it was Trump first term they would probably won next election, but it isnt. Generally Republicans are in unique position, where their candidate can say "that was Trump, I am different", because Trump is outlier (if for some reason Trump popularity goes up, they can ride this wave). On the other hand, Democrats have no one to vote for. Thats why, semi jokingly, I said Hunter, his recent tweet outburst made him more likeable than entire Democratic party. Both parties will be in this position for the 2028 presidential election. This is typical when a president's second term is ending, since there's no true incumbent running for re-election: The Republican presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Trump's presidency / approach (with Vance possibly having the hardest time distancing himself, if he even wants to). The Democratic presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Biden's presidency / approach (with Harris possibly having the hardest time distancing herself, if she even wants to). Whether or not there is "no one to vote for" is completely subjective and entirely a different subject. Polls this early - years early - are pretty useless indicators of who will do well in the primaries. We'll have to see which platforms each candidate focuses on championing, how they distinguish themselves from their primary opponents, etc. They not in the same position. Democrats will still be Democrats. Republicans however, as often mentioned here, were taken over by Trump, and are no longer the same republicans they were. Now Trump will be gone, so they will have opportunity to mold themselves into whatever they think will win them election. Then maybe don’t call politicians who blatantly aren’t socialists, socialists then? You can’t have your fucking cake and eat it too, you said right up this page that the Dems are either ‘anti-Trump’ or socialist’ and about half an hour later are saying ‘actually something like the Nordic model isn’t socialism’ Is it any fucking wonder politicians and think tanks are confused?
Dude they describe themselves as Democratic socialists, take it with them not me.
https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/
"We believe there are many avenues that feed into the democratic road to socialism."
If you account for that rest of my statement stands.
|
On June 26 2026 08:50 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2026 03:41 WombaT wrote:On June 26 2026 03:16 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 22:46 Billyboy wrote:
One thing to keep in mind for Rayzda is he is from Poland originally and likely old enough to remember what USSR communism was like and it was freaking horrible. Especially when you didn’t live in Moscow or St. Petersburg. So when people talk about communism or socialism that is what he thinks of, not the Nordic countries. Then when he hears moronic tankies talking about how it was mostly or all capitalist propaganda and the USSR was mostly good, he then thinks probably everything they say is wrong. And the sad part is all the reasonable people who just want a more equitable system get lumped in with the moronic tankies. Nordic countries are not socialist, good welfare system and strong labour unions do not make country socialist. On June 25 2026 23:11 WombaT wrote:
If Razyda can’t differentiate literal USSR Communism from like, milquetoast capitalism with some redistributive elements that’s on him
I can. You misunderstood my point. What are was saying was that when it comes to democrats, only candidates who describe themselves as socialists (eg: AOC, Mandani), seem to be able to generate some sort of organic excitement. On June 26 2026 01:33 dyhb wrote:
Trump's frankly obsessive concern with loyalty pulls Republicans behind Trump policies. Who can survive a question like, "I supported Trump when he did it, but I privately disagreed and did nothing, and trust me that I'll do all the good things and none of the bad if I'm elected?" It is difficult for me to imagine anyone but Vance being the nominee, and he's incredibly tied to Trump policies.
bolded: Isnt that, like, what every single politician before election says? Also one would imagine that the answer to this kind of questions would be along the lines: " You should ask president Trump about president Trump policies, my policies are as stated in my campaign." or something similar. I am also not sure if Vance will be candidate (after primaries). It seems to me that most of support he has, is because he is VP of Trump, not because VP is Vance (if that makes sense). On June 25 2026 22:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2026 17:59 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 14:27 dyhb wrote:On June 25 2026 10:11 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 02:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Democrat's chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus lost their primary to democratic socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier. Mamdani cast Avila Chevalier as the future of the Democratic Party, saying as he announced his endorsement on MS NOW that she will be “on the front lines” of showing that Democrats “have to be fighting for a vision that reckons with the fact that working people were not left behind just four years ago or 16 years ago. They were left behind a long time before that.”
“And it will take a new generation of leadership to ensure that the heartbeat of this party is once again the struggles of the working class,” Mamdani said.
Avila Chevalier is also a vocal critic of Israel, calling its war against Hamas in Gaza a genocide. A Columbia University alumna, she participated in the pro-Palestinian protests at the university and was present during last year’s standoff with police at Hamilton Hall, which she described as “quite horrific.” She also attended a controversial pro-Palestinian rally the day after Hamas’ 2023 attacks in Israel — an event that Brad Lander, the former city comptroller also sporting Mamdani’s endorsement in his congressional bid, condemned.
Avila Chevalier has voiced support for legislation to block certain arms sales to Israel, also known as the “Block the Bombs” bill. She has also called for abolishing ICE, “Medicare for All” and national tenant protections. www.nbcnews.comThat seems like a reasonably significant development regarding US politics? Essentially this means: Unless Democrats go with somethng crazy, like making Hunter their candidate, Republican wins next presidency. Trump has two huge things against him just from election to 2026: The Iran war was started under a mishmash of reasons, and none of the main ones were accomplished + Show Spoiler +Roughly speaking, the toppling of the Iranian regime, retrieval of all nuclear material, demolition of their ballistic missile stockpiles, and *later* permanent reopening of the strait before we freed up Iran to resume selling oil and operating its proxy Hezbollah and using previously frozen assets. That's somewhere between an absolute surrender and 90% of one. The energy crisis and the tariffs have individually and collectively hurt the American economy, and Trump's love of tariffs will likely continue to hurt the economy. I've seen it with talking to Republicans of my acquaintance. Their suppliers are hurting and their bottom lines are hurting and their upstream buyers are hurting. This is unlikely to change before the election in 2028. (If you want to stretch, a third would be the size of the corruption between crypto and Kushner's business and all the other self-dealing which would be too much for me to summarize right now) Democrats will somehow find a way to ruin it, perhaps, like they managed to turn Biden's 2020 win into Biden failing to hand off the reins and oopsie being forced to and Kamala/Biden's 2024 loss. But it's theirs to lose unless something big happens. bolded - this was what I was thinking after Trump election, that next one will go to Democrats by default. Democrats however managed to mess this up: essentially Democrats are now anti Trump or socialists. Socialists - well, yes you have New York and California, but then there are also other states, inhibited by sane people. Anti Trump - "Trump bad" argument is not the one which will work well against "John Smith", if it was Trump first term they would probably won next election, but it isnt. Generally Republicans are in unique position, where their candidate can say "that was Trump, I am different", because Trump is outlier (if for some reason Trump popularity goes up, they can ride this wave). On the other hand, Democrats have no one to vote for. Thats why, semi jokingly, I said Hunter, his recent tweet outburst made him more likeable than entire Democratic party. Both parties will be in this position for the 2028 presidential election. This is typical when a president's second term is ending, since there's no true incumbent running for re-election: The Republican presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Trump's presidency / approach (with Vance possibly having the hardest time distancing himself, if he even wants to). The Democratic presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Biden's presidency / approach (with Harris possibly having the hardest time distancing herself, if she even wants to). Whether or not there is "no one to vote for" is completely subjective and entirely a different subject. Polls this early - years early - are pretty useless indicators of who will do well in the primaries. We'll have to see which platforms each candidate focuses on championing, how they distinguish themselves from their primary opponents, etc. They not in the same position. Democrats will still be Democrats. Republicans however, as often mentioned here, were taken over by Trump, and are no longer the same republicans they were. Now Trump will be gone, so they will have opportunity to mold themselves into whatever they think will win them election. Then maybe don’t call politicians who blatantly aren’t socialists, socialists then? You can’t have your fucking cake and eat it too, you said right up this page that the Dems are either ‘anti-Trump’ or socialist’ and about half an hour later are saying ‘actually something like the Nordic model isn’t socialism’ Is it any fucking wonder politicians and think tanks are confused? Dude they describe themselves as Democratic socialists, take it with them not me. https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/"We believe there are many avenues that feed into the democratic road to socialism." If you account for that rest of my statement stands.
No, they don't. Your "they" is completely incorrect. You were talking about presidential candidates, yet at most 1 of them (Bernie Sanders) has gone anywhere near identifying as a Democratic Socialist. Maybe there might be one in 2028, but they would be the exception, not the norm. The fact that ~2 new leaders in New York identify as Democratic Socialists doesn't have anything to do with who has been running - or who will be running - in presidential primaries. Mamdani isn't even constitutionally eligible to run for president (he wasn't born in this country). Democratic presidential candidates have been overwhelmingly not socialists of any kind. Furthermore, most Democratic voters aren't Democratic Socialists / socialists either, so you're way off base at both levels (whether you're talking about most party leaders or most party members).
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On June 26 2026 08:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2026 08:50 Razyda wrote:On June 26 2026 03:41 WombaT wrote:On June 26 2026 03:16 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 22:46 Billyboy wrote:
One thing to keep in mind for Rayzda is he is from Poland originally and likely old enough to remember what USSR communism was like and it was freaking horrible. Especially when you didn’t live in Moscow or St. Petersburg. So when people talk about communism or socialism that is what he thinks of, not the Nordic countries. Then when he hears moronic tankies talking about how it was mostly or all capitalist propaganda and the USSR was mostly good, he then thinks probably everything they say is wrong. And the sad part is all the reasonable people who just want a more equitable system get lumped in with the moronic tankies. Nordic countries are not socialist, good welfare system and strong labour unions do not make country socialist. On June 25 2026 23:11 WombaT wrote:
If Razyda can’t differentiate literal USSR Communism from like, milquetoast capitalism with some redistributive elements that’s on him
I can. You misunderstood my point. What are was saying was that when it comes to democrats, only candidates who describe themselves as socialists (eg: AOC, Mandani), seem to be able to generate some sort of organic excitement. On June 26 2026 01:33 dyhb wrote:
Trump's frankly obsessive concern with loyalty pulls Republicans behind Trump policies. Who can survive a question like, "I supported Trump when he did it, but I privately disagreed and did nothing, and trust me that I'll do all the good things and none of the bad if I'm elected?" It is difficult for me to imagine anyone but Vance being the nominee, and he's incredibly tied to Trump policies.
bolded: Isnt that, like, what every single politician before election says? Also one would imagine that the answer to this kind of questions would be along the lines: " You should ask president Trump about president Trump policies, my policies are as stated in my campaign." or something similar. I am also not sure if Vance will be candidate (after primaries). It seems to me that most of support he has, is because he is VP of Trump, not because VP is Vance (if that makes sense). On June 25 2026 22:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2026 17:59 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 14:27 dyhb wrote:On June 25 2026 10:11 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 02:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Democrat's chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus lost their primary to democratic socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier. Mamdani cast Avila Chevalier as the future of the Democratic Party, saying as he announced his endorsement on MS NOW that she will be “on the front lines” of showing that Democrats “have to be fighting for a vision that reckons with the fact that working people were not left behind just four years ago or 16 years ago. They were left behind a long time before that.”
“And it will take a new generation of leadership to ensure that the heartbeat of this party is once again the struggles of the working class,” Mamdani said.
Avila Chevalier is also a vocal critic of Israel, calling its war against Hamas in Gaza a genocide. A Columbia University alumna, she participated in the pro-Palestinian protests at the university and was present during last year’s standoff with police at Hamilton Hall, which she described as “quite horrific.” She also attended a controversial pro-Palestinian rally the day after Hamas’ 2023 attacks in Israel — an event that Brad Lander, the former city comptroller also sporting Mamdani’s endorsement in his congressional bid, condemned.
Avila Chevalier has voiced support for legislation to block certain arms sales to Israel, also known as the “Block the Bombs” bill. She has also called for abolishing ICE, “Medicare for All” and national tenant protections. www.nbcnews.comThat seems like a reasonably significant development regarding US politics? Essentially this means: Unless Democrats go with somethng crazy, like making Hunter their candidate, Republican wins next presidency. Trump has two huge things against him just from election to 2026: The Iran war was started under a mishmash of reasons, and none of the main ones were accomplished + Show Spoiler +Roughly speaking, the toppling of the Iranian regime, retrieval of all nuclear material, demolition of their ballistic missile stockpiles, and *later* permanent reopening of the strait before we freed up Iran to resume selling oil and operating its proxy Hezbollah and using previously frozen assets. That's somewhere between an absolute surrender and 90% of one. The energy crisis and the tariffs have individually and collectively hurt the American economy, and Trump's love of tariffs will likely continue to hurt the economy. I've seen it with talking to Republicans of my acquaintance. Their suppliers are hurting and their bottom lines are hurting and their upstream buyers are hurting. This is unlikely to change before the election in 2028. (If you want to stretch, a third would be the size of the corruption between crypto and Kushner's business and all the other self-dealing which would be too much for me to summarize right now) Democrats will somehow find a way to ruin it, perhaps, like they managed to turn Biden's 2020 win into Biden failing to hand off the reins and oopsie being forced to and Kamala/Biden's 2024 loss. But it's theirs to lose unless something big happens. bolded - this was what I was thinking after Trump election, that next one will go to Democrats by default. Democrats however managed to mess this up: essentially Democrats are now anti Trump or socialists. Socialists - well, yes you have New York and California, but then there are also other states, inhibited by sane people. Anti Trump - "Trump bad" argument is not the one which will work well against "John Smith", if it was Trump first term they would probably won next election, but it isnt. Generally Republicans are in unique position, where their candidate can say "that was Trump, I am different", because Trump is outlier (if for some reason Trump popularity goes up, they can ride this wave). On the other hand, Democrats have no one to vote for. Thats why, semi jokingly, I said Hunter, his recent tweet outburst made him more likeable than entire Democratic party. Both parties will be in this position for the 2028 presidential election. This is typical when a president's second term is ending, since there's no true incumbent running for re-election: The Republican presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Trump's presidency / approach (with Vance possibly having the hardest time distancing himself, if he even wants to). The Democratic presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Biden's presidency / approach (with Harris possibly having the hardest time distancing herself, if she even wants to). Whether or not there is "no one to vote for" is completely subjective and entirely a different subject. Polls this early - years early - are pretty useless indicators of who will do well in the primaries. We'll have to see which platforms each candidate focuses on championing, how they distinguish themselves from their primary opponents, etc. They not in the same position. Democrats will still be Democrats. Republicans however, as often mentioned here, were taken over by Trump, and are no longer the same republicans they were. Now Trump will be gone, so they will have opportunity to mold themselves into whatever they think will win them election. Then maybe don’t call politicians who blatantly aren’t socialists, socialists then? You can’t have your fucking cake and eat it too, you said right up this page that the Dems are either ‘anti-Trump’ or socialist’ and about half an hour later are saying ‘actually something like the Nordic model isn’t socialism’ Is it any fucking wonder politicians and think tanks are confused? Dude they describe themselves as Democratic socialists, take it with them not me. https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/"We believe there are many avenues that feed into the democratic road to socialism." If you account for that rest of my statement stands. No, they don't. Your "they" is completely incorrect. You were talking about presidential candidates, yet at most 1 of them (Bernie Sanders) has gone anywhere near identifying as a Democratic Socialist. Maybe there might be one in 2028, but they would be the exception, not the norm. The fact that ~2 new leaders in New York identify as Democratic Socialists doesn't have anything to do with who has been running - or who will be running - in presidential primaries. Mamdani isn't even constitutionally eligible to run for president (he wasn't born in this country). Democratic presidential candidates have been overwhelmingly not socialists of any kind. Furthermore, most Democratic voters aren't Democratic Socialists / socialists either, so you're way off base at both levels (whether you're talking about most party leaders or most party members).
Will Razyda take this on board or will they double down? Place your bets now folks!
|
Are you, like, serious?? I happened to know what gulag is. Also werent you earlier pointing out that not every socialism is USSR? As for Norway, you may want to check out what "forvaring", is which sounds quite dystopian, I remember looking into it, because I was wondering how on earth anyone could think that releasing Breivik after 21 years is good idea.
Prisons are not something USSR came up with, irrelevant to the system, they were a thing for quite a while.
On June 26 2026 08:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2026 08:50 Razyda wrote:On June 26 2026 03:41 WombaT wrote:On June 26 2026 03:16 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 22:46 Billyboy wrote:
One thing to keep in mind for Rayzda is he is from Poland originally and likely old enough to remember what USSR communism was like and it was freaking horrible. Especially when you didn’t live in Moscow or St. Petersburg. So when people talk about communism or socialism that is what he thinks of, not the Nordic countries. Then when he hears moronic tankies talking about how it was mostly or all capitalist propaganda and the USSR was mostly good, he then thinks probably everything they say is wrong. And the sad part is all the reasonable people who just want a more equitable system get lumped in with the moronic tankies. Nordic countries are not socialist, good welfare system and strong labour unions do not make country socialist. On June 25 2026 23:11 WombaT wrote:
If Razyda can’t differentiate literal USSR Communism from like, milquetoast capitalism with some redistributive elements that’s on him
I can. You misunderstood my point. What are was saying was that when it comes to democrats, only candidates who describe themselves as socialists (eg: AOC, Mandani), seem to be able to generate some sort of organic excitement. On June 26 2026 01:33 dyhb wrote:
Trump's frankly obsessive concern with loyalty pulls Republicans behind Trump policies. Who can survive a question like, "I supported Trump when he did it, but I privately disagreed and did nothing, and trust me that I'll do all the good things and none of the bad if I'm elected?" It is difficult for me to imagine anyone but Vance being the nominee, and he's incredibly tied to Trump policies.
bolded: Isnt that, like, what every single politician before election says? Also one would imagine that the answer to this kind of questions would be along the lines: " You should ask president Trump about president Trump policies, my policies are as stated in my campaign." or something similar. I am also not sure if Vance will be candidate (after primaries). It seems to me that most of support he has, is because he is VP of Trump, not because VP is Vance (if that makes sense). On June 25 2026 22:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2026 17:59 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 14:27 dyhb wrote:On June 25 2026 10:11 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 02:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Democrat's chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus lost their primary to democratic socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier. Mamdani cast Avila Chevalier as the future of the Democratic Party, saying as he announced his endorsement on MS NOW that she will be “on the front lines” of showing that Democrats “have to be fighting for a vision that reckons with the fact that working people were not left behind just four years ago or 16 years ago. They were left behind a long time before that.”
“And it will take a new generation of leadership to ensure that the heartbeat of this party is once again the struggles of the working class,” Mamdani said.
Avila Chevalier is also a vocal critic of Israel, calling its war against Hamas in Gaza a genocide. A Columbia University alumna, she participated in the pro-Palestinian protests at the university and was present during last year’s standoff with police at Hamilton Hall, which she described as “quite horrific.” She also attended a controversial pro-Palestinian rally the day after Hamas’ 2023 attacks in Israel — an event that Brad Lander, the former city comptroller also sporting Mamdani’s endorsement in his congressional bid, condemned.
Avila Chevalier has voiced support for legislation to block certain arms sales to Israel, also known as the “Block the Bombs” bill. She has also called for abolishing ICE, “Medicare for All” and national tenant protections. www.nbcnews.comThat seems like a reasonably significant development regarding US politics? Essentially this means: Unless Democrats go with somethng crazy, like making Hunter their candidate, Republican wins next presidency. Trump has two huge things against him just from election to 2026: The Iran war was started under a mishmash of reasons, and none of the main ones were accomplished + Show Spoiler +Roughly speaking, the toppling of the Iranian regime, retrieval of all nuclear material, demolition of their ballistic missile stockpiles, and *later* permanent reopening of the strait before we freed up Iran to resume selling oil and operating its proxy Hezbollah and using previously frozen assets. That's somewhere between an absolute surrender and 90% of one. The energy crisis and the tariffs have individually and collectively hurt the American economy, and Trump's love of tariffs will likely continue to hurt the economy. I've seen it with talking to Republicans of my acquaintance. Their suppliers are hurting and their bottom lines are hurting and their upstream buyers are hurting. This is unlikely to change before the election in 2028. (If you want to stretch, a third would be the size of the corruption between crypto and Kushner's business and all the other self-dealing which would be too much for me to summarize right now) Democrats will somehow find a way to ruin it, perhaps, like they managed to turn Biden's 2020 win into Biden failing to hand off the reins and oopsie being forced to and Kamala/Biden's 2024 loss. But it's theirs to lose unless something big happens. bolded - this was what I was thinking after Trump election, that next one will go to Democrats by default. Democrats however managed to mess this up: essentially Democrats are now anti Trump or socialists. Socialists - well, yes you have New York and California, but then there are also other states, inhibited by sane people. Anti Trump - "Trump bad" argument is not the one which will work well against "John Smith", if it was Trump first term they would probably won next election, but it isnt. Generally Republicans are in unique position, where their candidate can say "that was Trump, I am different", because Trump is outlier (if for some reason Trump popularity goes up, they can ride this wave). On the other hand, Democrats have no one to vote for. Thats why, semi jokingly, I said Hunter, his recent tweet outburst made him more likeable than entire Democratic party. Both parties will be in this position for the 2028 presidential election. This is typical when a president's second term is ending, since there's no true incumbent running for re-election: The Republican presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Trump's presidency / approach (with Vance possibly having the hardest time distancing himself, if he even wants to). The Democratic presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Biden's presidency / approach (with Harris possibly having the hardest time distancing herself, if she even wants to). Whether or not there is "no one to vote for" is completely subjective and entirely a different subject. Polls this early - years early - are pretty useless indicators of who will do well in the primaries. We'll have to see which platforms each candidate focuses on championing, how they distinguish themselves from their primary opponents, etc. They not in the same position. Democrats will still be Democrats. Republicans however, as often mentioned here, were taken over by Trump, and are no longer the same republicans they were. Now Trump will be gone, so they will have opportunity to mold themselves into whatever they think will win them election. Then maybe don’t call politicians who blatantly aren’t socialists, socialists then? You can’t have your fucking cake and eat it too, you said right up this page that the Dems are either ‘anti-Trump’ or socialist’ and about half an hour later are saying ‘actually something like the Nordic model isn’t socialism’ Is it any fucking wonder politicians and think tanks are confused? Dude they describe themselves as Democratic socialists, take it with them not me. https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/"We believe there are many avenues that feed into the democratic road to socialism." If you account for that rest of my statement stands. No, they don't. Your "they" is completely incorrect. You were talking about presidential candidates, yet at most 1 of them (Bernie Sanders) has gone anywhere near identifying as a Democratic Socialist. Maybe there might be one in 2028, but they would be the exception, not the norm. The fact that ~2 new leaders in New York identify as Democratic Socialists doesn't have anything to do with who has been running - or who will be running - in presidential primaries. Mamdani isn't even constitutionally eligible to run for president (he wasn't born in this country). Democratic presidential candidates have been overwhelmingly not socialists of any kind. Furthermore, most Democratic voters aren't Democratic Socialists / socialists either, so you're way off base at both levels (whether you're talking about most party leaders or most party members).
2 specified by me actually dont. I was talking about Democratic party, which is essentially split. You have part which have their talking points dominated by racism toward orange people, and part which has some idea of what they want (from currently possible presidency candidates it would be AOC who describes herself as democratic socialist). You missing my entire point, while proving me right. Racism toward orange people wont get you elected when orange people are gone, and your only other option is the girl who given herself label of socialism, which is a no go for presidential candidate. My point is Democrats dont have someone who can come and say " I will improve lifes of everyone by doing x and y"
On June 26 2026 04:31 dyhb wrote:
Voters don't like it. Just assuming that stuff like the Iran deal and tariffs are still unpopular in 2028 as they are now, they're tied to the upper members of the administration and anybody in Congress that championed it. "If you knew they did harm and hurt America, why didn't you make your stand there and theaten to resign/resign?" Politicians try to distance themselves from their unpopular predecessors, that is true, but they typically fail. Success is typically due to the candidate already having distance from the unpopular predecessor.
Don't underrate how much Trump will disparage any successor that openly distances himself from the record and agenda.
So what? end of the day they will be presented with binary choice, where both candidates say " I'll do all the good things and none of the bad if I'm elected". All the questions you expect can be also answered by " It was president elected by American people, I worked with him because thats what American people expected me to do" see the italic? it is ultimate con, you might have not agree with president, but by working with him you listened to voters. You also not directly opposed Trump, so he wont go after you in rants.
Again it is in so far only prediction, but I am telling you now that Republican is taking presidency in 2028. If you want, you may save this post and quote it back at me in 2028, but I dont think you will have a chance. If you do however I will openly admit I was wrong.
Edit: apologies my bad in response to DPB i wrote "2 specified by me actually dont." what i wanted to write is "2 specified by me actually do."
Edit 2: In last paragraph I meant as long as Democrats dont do something crazy, like putting Hunter on the ballot. (or Fuentes who apparently at some point said he is going to vote Democrats).
|
Ya, I made sense, you have not. Not sure if it is a reading comprehension issue or you just don’t actually read the words.
As for Norways prison system, the whole point is rehabilitation not punishment. And it works, assuming you want less reoffending and less crime.
|
The most dystopian thing about the Norwegian prison system is that they have measurably lower rates of recidivism which means a society with both less crime and percentage of the population imprisoned.
Meanwhile the most dystopian thing about the American prison system is the rampant sex slavery.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1361 Posts
On June 26 2026 11:00 LightSpectra wrote:
The most dystopian thing about the Norwegian prison system is that they have measurably lower rates of recidivism which means a society with both less crime and percentage of the population imprisoned.
Meanwhile the most dystopian thing about the American prison system is the rampant sex slavery.
Ahh but how would corporations make money from this if people don't get stuck in the prison system, and get exploited for cheap labour and be the excuse to charge the government for basically locking people up for their entire productive lives? Lower recidivism is clearly bad for business!
Won't somebody think of the corporations?!
|
On June 26 2026 10:49 Billyboy wrote:
Ya, I made sense, you have not. Not sure if it is a reading comprehension issue or you just don’t actually read the words.
As for Norways prison system, the whole point is rehabilitation not punishment. And it works, assuming you want less reoffending and less crime.
Yeah my dude, you really should check, the words I wrote for their meaning. "forvaring" essentially means that , while you served your sentence, you may be kept in prison indefinitely because you "may" commit an offence. Thats essentially insane.
On June 26 2026 11:00 LightSpectra wrote:
The most dystopian thing about the Norwegian prison system is that they have measurably lower rates of recidivism which means a society with both less crime and percentage of the population imprisoned.
Meanwhile the most dystopian thing about the American prison system is the rampant sex slavery.
And rising crime rates..., also it seems that because under 15 cant be prosecuted, kids went wild.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235224000680
Characteristics of criminal history and the first imprisonment according to age, for people imprisoned in Norway (2000–2019)
Charges dropped due to age < 15 years3 260 (68.1)
Waiting for update to this one btw.
|
|
|
|
|
|
44790
1084
384
1
EPT
