And this is your fault, assuming these two statemebts are equivalent. Actually there is no logical path from one to another.
The Trump Presidency - Part 2
- Thread starter The Boy
- Start date
Not equally fine. I dont agree with your premises though as i said, there ia a tangencial validity point made
Sure, in a vacuum, but that is not the case. One of the candidates was going to win. Choosing neither, by definition, means the acceptance of the outcome of either candidates presidency.
I am going to assume we can agree on 2 points:
1. Neither candidate has earned my vote
2. If candidate T wins then things will be potentially far, far, worse than if candidate H wins.
To ignore point 2 is to say that point 1 is all that matters, and that outcomes do not. You both obviously do not agree, so make your case. Why do you think that outcomes should not factor into choices?
Alfonso etc, this is a good idea. It’s gone way of topic please create a dedicated thread for military size etc then you can all measure your military dick sizes all you want
How many tanks do you have to talk to people like that?
I play world of tanks, beware
MAGA took over the Republican party pushed it so far right it's unrecognizable, people would have said there aren't enough voters for that.
Nah there were always enough of those, doesn’t take much to embolden godawful tendencies in people, history teaches us that all the time.
great idea. in any case, anyone with a partially working brain knows that europeans are the superior fighters. we were born in the fight, moulded by it. americans had to leave because they were too prudish and massive pussyholes who couldn’t hack the pace. they just buy the biggest guns and bombs as a countermeasure, in the same way a small dicked man buys a massive pick-up truck.
starmer would easily bitch donald in a fight.
I bet you use premium tanks you filthy animal.
I don't think that's really true, I reckon there's still more regular type Republicans than there are MAGA, but they're desparate to have power or remain there, primary challenges are what they fear because of low numbers voting in those getting kicked out is much easier
There are also many who will just never vote for a Democrat in any circumstances (the reverse is also true)
Bet Starmer could fix a tank. His dad was a toolmaker.
Who started this conversation on tanks, I know Trump is built like one but ....
A) argument from conscience:
Voting for an evil person means also enabling and actually helping them to do evil things, it means being an accomplice. If all choices are evil, then not choosing is only valid. You put emphasis on the outcome and the result, but it is not the end of the journey that matters.
B)argument for long term change of political landscape
By constantly voting for lesser evil between more evil options every cycle, you are only perpetuating the state and you'll keep getting more evil options. Which is exactly what is happening in US politics. By not voting, you are effectively saying to gain my vote you need to earn it by choosing a good candidate. By not voting for one of two major candidates, you are saying there is a third option you want to vote for, and you are willing to do it in the future. We can see throught other countries histories how quickly third options can surge and effectively killing mainstream options before them. I understand this is more difficult in US system, but not impossible. Isn't it exactly how Lincoln and republicans came into power first time? Yes, I realize it was a long time ago and a lot of has changed.
Finally, some people are just apolitical and won't care until their ass is in the sh"t.
P.s. blaming people for not voting the way you want is not gonna turn them to your side, probably just the opposite.
What, I don't understand is why aren't there massive protests against trump. When trump lost the election he organized the coup and attack on capitol. He is now seizing power in most illegal way and there are no tens of thousands protesting in front of the white house and congress? You should be "storming" to DC in hundreds of thousands.
Cant believe flink Kash Patel was actually confirmed. The actual deep state is in control now.
good job they’ve got all those guns over there to use on the government, when they feel their civil rights are being violated by those in power. or do they only actually use them to shoot kids and blacks?
Nah just cheapo ones for me
You got it
It really feels like a DEI hire. I don't like it.
A and B sound great in theory, but in practice they lead us here. You are essentially advocating for throwing gas on a fire and hoping the house doesn't burn down before the fire truck shows up.
As for blaming people? I really don't care about "turning them to my side". It's obvious that self interest is not a motivator, so why should the thoughts of some nobody on a football website mean shit to anyone. Besides, saying people are apolitical or any other any other excuse does nothing but provide cover for choices they made. Not voting is a choice, and making that choice has consequences. If someone says "I decided not to vote and I am ok with Trump's America" than fair enough, but if one chooses not to vote and then laments the outcome of that choice?
You sure? Next week he will announce the new deal in which the us has started sales of weapon to Russia. Just now he ended the sales to Ukraine
In all seriousness though almost every appointment they've made so far is a DEI hire in the sense that virtually none of them have close to the qualifications required for the jobs. As always pot->kettle
I know lots of Trump voters who will get pissed if someone were to get a promotion for even but having a day more of seniority than they do - if any of these hires would happen as they do for the fkin highest officer of the land and in their shop- they d burn the place down. Once again...long live hypocrisy
That certainly sounds like him.
I do understand that he is playing to his domestic audience which is fine.
But because of the global status and influence of the US, almost any domestic issues has a big effect. And at the moment, any dealing with Russia is a major concern.
Just for information, my take on Trump is that while he is a very successful business man, he doesn't possess the necessary intellect that makes him a world class leader like for example Kennedy, Obama or Bill Clinton.
And he realises that and that is why he is always telling people about what he would have done i.e. criticism as opposed to constructive.
To be a true world class leader, you need to be able to think strategically not just fire off short term tactics.
And that is his basic problem.
Good post. Exactly that.
Newsmax standing with the AP.
Will they force all these ex government workers to becoming cattle farmers in a new agricucultural revolution to own the vegan libs?
In all seriousness, doesn't the US risk a serious brain drain? Not just the army of now unemployed highly experienced and educated folk, but also the highly skilled scientists, engineers and academics who feel that their line of work will now be stiffened for the foreseeable, especially if they're not doing taskmaster Musk's bidding.
Granted, this might be what the MAGA ringleaders want since anti-intellectualism is a cornerstone of fascism, and the more these red hat wearing simpletons become the predominant bloc the better for them. But if the likes of China start poaching their best and brightest, then there should be cause for concern you'd think.
That's exactly it. Intellectualism is their enemy. Keeo the people stuoid and brainwashed and you stay in power.
Not the best longterm plan for a successful state obviously, but it's not like they give a feck about the greater good.
Do they care about the (likely) growing discontent all of these people who are being fired will have? America is a country full of guns, and like Luigi demonstrated, it only takes one person. Sure Trump will always be safe, but there are a lot of people who don’t have his security detail.
Police are treating it as potential domestic violence.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/california-fire-captain-stabbed-death-home/story?id=118996235
I find that not having enough tanks is alive and well in Europe at a time when it's been largely blunted in the states.
A. Just reducing everything to calling a person evil is overly simplistic and, in my opinion, useless when applied to voting. Say both candidates have policies on issues A and B that you think are evil. So you just say "both candidates are evil". Problem is, two candidates never have an equally evil set of policies. So both candidates are functionally the same on issues A and B, but Candidate R is leagues worse on issues C, D, E, and F so just saying "both candidates are evil" because of issues A and B completely ignores the outcomes that make the country and world far worse because of issues C,D,E,F, etc.
So I find that angle fundamentally flawed and not a sound way to make a decision.
B. No, it is practically impossible now. After Citizen's United there is simply no way a third party will ever be able to compete with the money in politics.
Even before Citizen's United, the only two times it was viable in the last 150 years were when Perot, a billionaire himself, poured a ton of money into a campaign in 1992 and then, depending on accounts, one or both major parties did some shady shite to force Perot out. Before that, you have to go way back to 1912 and a former popular president, Teddy Roosevelt and his Bull Moose party and even then Roosevelt lost and wasn't all that close.
I can see why people from Europe, or other places with multi-party systems, might think Bernie should have just run as a third party candidate in 2016 or 2020 but he had zero chance of winning as a third party candidate. Roger Stone realized this even earlier when he and Trump were bandying about taking over Perot's party post 2000 and using that as a platform to get Trump elected but Stone concluded Trump wouldn't have a chance of winning so it's better to take over one of the two main parties. Not voting is simply not going to force the Democrats to "move further to the left".
Last edited: