Yes, 100% agree. That is why it should be a test to be able to vote
2024 U.S. Elections | Trump v Harris
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Yes, 100% agree. That is why it should be a test to be able to vote
Angela Alsobrooks is the projected winner. Good.
In my county, Nikki Haley is receiving 36% of the votes so far
In my county, Nikki Haley is receiving 36% of the votes so far
Angela Alsobrooks is the projected winner. Good.
In my county, Nikki Haley is receiving 36% of the votes so far
Trone spent about ten times as much as Angela, i think, and still lost.
Sad!
She had no presence in my part of Maryland. Her win came as a surprise as she didn't do anything (no ads, flyers or anything) in my market. Hope she wins and runs hard on the abortion issue but I think this will be a close race that the Dems could lose.
Trone is not that liked in the areas where most people in Maryland live: MoCo, HoCo, PG, Baltimore area, etc. He’s more popular in the Eastern Shore and Western Maryland, but even in the ES, he didn’t perform as well as I thought he would.
The guy threw money left and right, and at some point I was reading this week that some got tired of that. I personally did: every commercial break had David Trone. And I believe his proximity to the ADL this year didn’t help either.
This is Maryland: it’s an educated state with big swaths living in the suburbs of Baltimore and DC. Guys like Trone don’t sufficiently resonate. Add to that the fact that PG county gave Alsobrooks a massive push, and here you go.
As for the polling: that’s amazing. Trone is losing badly, by a bigger margin than I expected.
Octogenarians gone wild.
Oofff, however despite the ramblings out of his beedy eyes, he'll get alot of plaudits for term limits for senators which is more than likely a carrot dangle of a donkey pulling a cart full of manure
That last policy is probbably the most sensible I've heard from any major American politician for a while....
Trump has no incentives to debate Biden, as he is leading every poll ever these days.
He will probably find an excuse to not do them.
He will probably find an excuse to not do them.
Our polls suck. He could be leading every poll and still get his tail kicked in the election (see what happened in Maryland yesterday).
Biden and Trump have accepted a CNN debate on June 27: https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/15/politics/joe-biden-debate/index.html
And another one via ABC later in the summer or fall.
Lets see how much they drug them to not seem a nursing home rumbling and mumbling
More importantly no audience as well, which should help Biden out.
“When I’m president, we will not allow our colleges to be taken over by violent radicals, and if you come here from a violent country and try to bring jihadism, or anti-Americanism, or antisemitism to our campuses, we will immediately deport you. You’ll be out of that school,” Trump said, to the crowd’s cheers.
The comments come amid Republican-led efforts to brand all anti-war protesters as supporters of terrorism and a continued push to criminalize protest.
https://www.motherjones.com/politic...ers-gop-marco-rubio-palestine-college-deport/
The comments come amid Republican-led efforts to brand all anti-war protesters as supporters of terrorism and a continued push to criminalize protest.
https://www.motherjones.com/politic...ers-gop-marco-rubio-palestine-college-deport/
Aren't they still mainly done through phone calls? So its just a count from people that answer unknown numbers and don't hang up right away when they realise its a cold call?
No.
Which would be the perfect point for all Democrats to come out swinging in support of basic freedoms and support for peaceful protests. And yet the mainstream democratic opinion and voice are leading this shitty rhetoric. Biden, Pelosi, Hillary led the way in ratcheting up pressure to smear and oppress peaceful protests.
Pelosi told them to feck off back to China.
Biden smeared them as anti-semitic.
Hillary was Hillary.
Which I guess @MarylandMUFan and @Beachryan would agree if the law dictates it. After all law is law. Just or unjust
Wait, Trump said he'll change something that is entirely out of his power to change, has no chance of happening and will outrage the left?
Almost all of the schools in question are private institutions, and thus I don't believe that even an executive order (which would be almost instantly shut down by the courts) could impact them.
Fortunately the way laws are written in the US are not at the whim of one (insane) man.
If the US were to pass a law forbidding student protests (which I honestly believe would never happen) then I'd be one of the first ones out there protesting the law.
If the US continues to enforce extremely sensible, lenient rules around student protests when they cross lines, then I think we should get back to the actual conflict instead of focussing on tiny groups of students at elite universities. Even if they're really passionate.
And I assume you'd be doing so peacefully and within the rules. What if that protest was shut down? Or nothing happened? What if Trump tried to ban all protests?
I assume everyone goes home and that would be the end of it.
I think calling in riot police onto your campus to disperse students is probably not extremely sensible or lenient. I remember there being encampments/ occupations etc in British universities in the late 2000s and don't recall arm riot police going in to bust heads. In fact, there are some occupations now and currently no sign of that either.
There are hundreds of protests you've not heard a peep about around the US because it's being done peacefully through discussion with the universities. I agree the actions of Columbia were ill-advised, and I'd imagine that the President will lose their job accordingly. But there are loads of other examples of protest groups meeting with administrations and ironing things out.
If the US tried to ban protesting then they'd have millions of people to arrest. Because those protesting would be willing to get arrested. As would I.
This whole thing is ridiculous. No one is banning pro-Palestinian protests. I'd wager that there are currently still several in effect at Columbia and UCLA today, despite the last two weeks.
Again, what some posters seem to want is that as long as you're protesting something they believe strongly enough in, those protestors should not adhere to the policies that everyone else does. That's not a way functioning society works. It's further not how the protest movement works. If you believe peaceful protests aren't getting the results you want, you're more than welcome to break the law in order to elevate your cause and hopefully influence policy.
I feel the same way about all the climate change folk. Go ahead, barricade a major road to get your point across. But you go into that knowing that at some point the police are going to come and move you. And they may arrest you. The bravery is in knowing that and doing it anyway.
If we're honest this is just impotent rage at a side issue because the major issue isn't being solved.
I do not think the USA is shutting down protests willy nilly, nor did I suggest that the USA is banning pro-Palestinian protests. I think it would be advisable that when trying to engage in good faith, you do not consistently project onto others opinions or thoughts they do not have.
I was mostly honing in on the points you'd made about how the limits of protest and the punishments meted out if protestors break the rules/ refuse to disperse. For you, banning protests or abortion or I assume back in the day the civil rights movement are issues worthy of protest, that brings things to a halt and forces change. Because for you, they are important issues enough issues to do this.
I think the issue here is that you have decided the Gaza issue is not and don't seem to understand that there are some for whom it is. That's fine but the sarcasm is genuinely unpleasant, as it would be if someone was sarcastically talking about whatever issues you deemed important enough to protest strongly.
I apologise for the sarcasm, there are certian posters whose tone grates and I shouldn't respond in kind.
I think the Gaza situation 100% warrants protests. I'm disgusted by Netanyahu, and have been saying that for months now I wish Biden would do more to try and stop him. I wish the protests were larger, and would force the administration to honestly help themselves by just dis-associating altogether with Netanyahu and disgusting people like Ben Gvir.
The point I'm trying and clearly failing to make is that protests are great, fundamental tools of democracy. But there are limits imposed on them - and it's fine to debate said limits - but if you knowingly break those, then you have to be prepared to accept the consequences. That's it.
This all stemmed from a poster pasting in a (yet another) tweet that was basically trying to paint the US as similar to Russia/China because the Columbia protestors who violated policies were going to have to do some training sessions as their punishment. I thought that was a laughable take, which I said. I think that punishment is absolutely fine, and no one can be upset about it, much less try to equate with countries who quite literally execute protestors summarily.
A private institution (presumably with a duty of care) calling in riot police on their own staff and students over a peaceful protest is fecking bonkers though, can we at least all agree on that?
It's not about what's Lawful and Unlawful
Even in Iran you can be detained "LAWFULLY" for whatever trumped (pun not intended) up charges. Resisting Arrest, Obstruction of justice, Anti-Semitism could be constructed by everything from refusing to go home when told, up to not moving fast enough, and not going down fast enough when being told, or simply yelling ouch and trying to talk your way out when being tackled to ground.
And the next student would think twice when voicing their protest because they know that they can be targeted without prejudice, without proper court proceeding.
Are America free? Yes, only if your protest goes inline with the Government's action. When it's not, just be cough.... lawful...cough... about it or we will strict you with harsh law.
I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that. As I said, I expect the President to be fired accordingly.
I do think that if the protestors refused to enable students to gain access to classes you do have to do something though. But it shouldn't be armed police, that's a recipe for disaster.
But...are you not concerned about the government's role in the debacle? A random university rings up and says "I need a bunch of armed thugs to clear out some hippies". "Ok, say no more, here's 300 dressed as RoboCop".
The response of college authorities to similar protests in Dublin certainly put the US response into context.
No because I understand that the 'government' isn't involved in this, as was covered extensively. It was the NYPD and Columbia university. Anyone trying to paint it as some big repression scheme from the White House down is just lying to try and create narrative, and to be honest that annoys me. The same people take the President's comments - which were entirely reasonable - completely of out context, remove bits they don't like, emphasize bits that fit their narrative and then tweet them as evidence.
The NYPD is part of the government...
In as much as the Minnesota Waste Collection department is too. It's a municipality-run entity. You know when 'government' is used here it's insinuating federal, ie, something to do with Joe Biden.
Which the NYPD is not.
Hillary and Pelosi are completely irrelevant and well past their expiration dates. Really shows how outdated the Dems are right now. None of those three should be doing anything but living in retirement well away from giving opinions to the media (or running for president). It's horrible we are straddled with Biden as candidate instead of those power addicted ghouls letting the next generation, like Newsom and Whitmer, take over the party.