If Trump loses, the GOP are basically fecked
2024 U.S. Elections | Trump wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Let the (GOP) Civil War begin.
Nah, who are we kidding?! It will still be Trump in 2028 running for President.
Let him run. He'll be 82. He won't win 2028.
Because just because somebody convinced themselves that they deserve something doesn't force everyone else to give it to them.
1 Adult = 1 vote's objective is mostly for practical reasons not to stroke egos of adult people and if you want to seriously argue that other system would be better, you would have to argue that it leads to better outcomes in some way, but that's way more difficult.
I'd be cautious with that. He was supposed to be finished after 2020, but never underestimate just how much worse can everything get. If Kamala wins and is unpopular, 2028 might be horribly stressful.
[woman gives birth]
It’s a girl!? No!!! Now we have -2 votes in this family!!!
I sincerely hope this isn’t the case. Kid is gonna resent the hell out of you if you do
Damn.
The entire purpose of him running is to use the Presidency to avoid jail time in his federal cases. So if he loses, there's a good chance those cases will proceed over the next four years, which is more than long enough for them to conclude.
Friends, Floridians, countrymen. Lend me your ears…… With apologies to Billy Shakespeare and Julius Caesar!
You mean he’ll have to wait until 2032!
Trump's brain is already turning to mush now, there's no way he's still around in 2028.
He is just the figure head, the ideas will continue without him.
Narrator: And this is when the GOP flipped their views on abortion.
In terms of parents voting for kids.
It would be necessary (at an early age) to explain to kids the reason grown up people vote for them.
I was reading somewhere that the card game 'snap or 'slapjack' (which is one name for it in the US ) is the first card game many youngsters learn to play, so using the party symbols, e.g. an Elephant can be used to 'snap' another Elephant and a Donkey could 'snap', another Donkey etc.
However parents would then have to explain how if one parent held all the Donkeys and the other held all the Elephants, then no one can win the game...because neither can undertake a 'snap action'
..that might help to explain to kids how their parents might be abusing their voting rights as they have no idea what they are doing and the government now gives the opportunity to do nothing twice or three times depending on how many siblings.
It would be necessary (at an early age) to explain to kids the reason grown up people vote for them.
I was reading somewhere that the card game 'snap or 'slapjack' (which is one name for it in the US ) is the first card game many youngsters learn to play, so using the party symbols, e.g. an Elephant can be used to 'snap' another Elephant and a Donkey could 'snap', another Donkey etc.
However parents would then have to explain how if one parent held all the Donkeys and the other held all the Elephants, then no one can win the game...because neither can undertake a 'snap action'
..that might help to explain to kids how their parents might be abusing their voting rights as they have no idea what they are doing and the government now gives the opportunity to do nothing twice or three times depending on how many siblings.
What the feck are you talking about?In terms of parents voting for kids.
It would be necessary (at an early age) to explain to kids the reason grown up people vote for them.
I was reading somewhere that the card game 'snap or 'slapjack' (which is one name for it in the US ) is the first card game many youngsters learn to play, so using the party symbols, e.g. an Elephant can be used to 'snap' another Elephant and a Donkey could 'snap', another Donkey etc.
However parents would then have to explain how if one parent held all the Donkeys and the other held all the Elephants, then no one can win the game...because neither can undertake a 'snap action'
..that might help to explain to kids how their parents might be abusing their voting rights as they have no idea what they are doing and the government now gives the opportunity to do nothing twice or three times depending on how many siblings.
If he loses in November, he will be the nominee again in 28 if alive.
The Republican voters simply can't quit him.
Obviously you have never had the joy of playing 'snap' with your parents, the rules are simple, but there are always arguments.... a bit like politics!
Sounds like a coup to me.In terms of parents voting for kids.
It would be necessary (at an early age) to explain to kids the reason grown up people vote for them.
I was reading somewhere that the card game 'snap or 'slapjack' (which is one name for it in the US ) is the first card game many youngsters learn to play, so using the party symbols, e.g. an Elephant can be used to 'snap' another Elephant and a Donkey could 'snap', another Donkey etc.
However parents would then have to explain how if one parent held all the Donkeys and the other held all the Elephants, then no one can win the game...because neither can undertake a 'snap action'
..that might help to explain to kids how their parents might be abusing their voting rights as they have no idea what they are doing and the government now gives the opportunity to do nothing twice or three times depending on how many siblings.
Excellent!!!
Once Trump got equated to Jesus and Biblical prophet etc., it didn't matter whether his brain worked or not. All that matters is whether he is alive or not.
Doesn't he only get one more term anyway?
I don’t think so. His dumb ideas looked far less appealing to voters when the likes of Vivek or DeSantis repeated them. Similarly, when his VP says some of the same stuff as him, the public doesn’t seem to buy as when Trump says so.
I hope they (finally!) take the hint!
Last edited:
Is paraphrasing. You decide what he eats everyday. Might cause obesity or not. what time they go to sleep. Every single decision. When I am talking about activities maybe is a poor example and sure they have some power decision the older they get, but some activities might be off the table because of distance because I might consider too expensive, or too dangerous or anything. The influence is big
Anyway, I deviated the conversation long enough. And many people disagree that there is a point on that and I disagree that there is no point. I am just not certain of the whole concept, thats it.
And thanks everyone to say its piece
Yeah, giving parents more voting power is just a horrible, poorly thought out idea. First, its discriminatory and inherently biased, so should be instantly disqualified as a serious suggestion just based on that. Second, it would create an awful political incentive structure that weaponizes children so it deserves be disqualified based solely on that as well. Those two by themselves are enough to make a very bad idea that shouldn't even be considered and together it should be a non-starter.
As mentioned, Vance is just doing this to troll Kamala but the proposal should be soundly criticized for as bad an idea as it is.
As mentioned, Vance is just doing this to troll Kamala but the proposal should be soundly criticized for as bad an idea as it is.
Yes, leave the hate and violence for gaza.
If the child is adopted, does the biological parent get considered or the adopted one? What if the parents are divorced and remarried - does the biological parent get the vote or the step parent? What if the children are American, but the parents are not? What if the parents are American, but the children are not? How about a 8-month pregnant mother? How about an 8-week pregnant mother? What if the child is deported a day before election day? What if the parent is? If parents get multiple votes, can they split it amongst candidates? If the children belong to different states, can the parents transfer their votes to their own home state?
Sheer idiocy from a sheer idiot, purely borne out of disdain and hatred for a female presidential candidate who chooses not to be a mother.
Sheer idiocy from a sheer idiot, purely borne out of disdain and hatred for a female presidential candidate who chooses not to be a mother.
She is though. When she married Doug at least one, if not both, of her stepchildren were minors.
The flag was only two days from retirement!
I wonder what consultant told Dems that the way to thread the needle was to screech about Netanyahu, skip speeches, etc. and also revert to Bush-era 'terrorists hate are freedom' hysterics when it comes to protesters.
Probably the same geniuses that told the protestors the best way to get positive publicity was to deface monuments, attack police, and burn the American flag. It's almost like neither side gives a shit about actually making progress.
i'm always curious about arguments like this.
would them not doing the same have made progress? is there any evidence of that? at all? did we not all just see what happened in so many universities? in dem trifecta states, with a dem president supporting the cops? is there any single thing stopping her from announcing this policy "progress" right now, while ignoring the protests? and what would this progress mean while her boss continues to support this genocide?
Mendozaaaaaaaaa!
She probably can’t help herself. Harris is massively pro Israel.
There's no progress to be made. The US has been clear, the genocide will go on and have political support. People have nothing left but to express their anger.
This will probably change a bit in the coming weeks