United States Corrupt Twattery

Jupitus

Jupitus

Old and short, no wonder I'm grumpy!
Staff member
Moderator
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 14, 2003
Messages
3,367
Bodhi

Bodhi

Once agreed with Scouse and a LibDem at same time
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
9,346
C

caLLous

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,520
Scouse said:
So, the wording is obvious. But the point is fair - who's your fucking nominee?

Pick your challenger, then we'll come to the party.
Click to expand...
Or "we're so confident in our own campaign, we'll turn up on September 10th and debate whoever". They're not scheduling things "with Harris", there's a time and a place already defined, there's nothing to schedule. It's worth noting that Biden wasn't officially the nominee in the first debate either so this is a pretty desperate excuse to cover for Trump's cowardice.
 
Scouse

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,727
caLLous said:
Or "we're so confident in our own campaign, we'll turn up on September 10th and debate whoever". They're not scheduling things "with Harris", there's a time and a place already defined, there's nothing to schedule. It's worth noting that Biden wasn't officially the nominee in the first debate either so this is a pretty desperate excuse to cover for Trump's cowardice.
Click to expand...
Meh. I don't think it's cowardice. It's political expediency. It gives them a narrative that the Dem's can't sort their shit out (which, clearly, they can't). Why would they debate a candidate that the Dems can drop if they do badly? As far as they're concerned this is a tactical win.

Pointing at them and calling them cowards is like pointing at Starmer and saying "why don't you fucking tell us what you're going to do, you coward". He didn't tell us, because he wanted to win. If he said "I'm going to build on the green belt and then start fucking about with your pensions" nobody would have voted Labour...

Same strategy, different asshat.
 
C

caLLous

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,520
I don't know, it seems to me like the Dems have never been as unified or energised as they are right now (certainly not since 2008). Everybody who might've put their name forward as a contender (Newsom, Whitmer, etc) has backed Harris, there's been no dissent, the last of the big Dem names in Obama endorsed her this morning. The GOP were clinging to the lack of that last endorsement as a sign that some of the senior Dems didn't think she was the right choice and yet here we are.

I didn't call them cowards, I called Trump a coward. It's nothing to do with policy (so I don't understand how you've crowbarred Starmer in) - if they think they can win the election on merit, who they're up against in a debate shouldn't make the blindest bit of difference. "We'll be ready and waiting on September 10th, whether the Dems can pull themselves together by then or not" is a far stronger message than what they put out.

Harris has come flying out of the traps with aggressive messaging about Trump and it seems to be landing (especially with young voters) - he's a bully and bullies don't like being stood up to. And by a non-white woman? Forget about it.

She's backed him into a corner - either he debates her and more than likely comes out of it badly or he cries off and will be painted as a massive fanny. Either way, the Dem attack ads practically write themselves.
 
Wij

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,404
Trump wasn’t officially the nominee in the last debate. That only happened last week.
 
Scouse

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,727
Wij said:
Trump wasn’t officially the nominee in the last debate. That only happened last week.
Click to expand...
You guys keep getting held up on "correctness". And as we all know, being technically correct is indeed the best form of correct.
 
Scouse

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,727
caLLous said:
I don't know, it seems to me like the Dems have never been as unified or energised as they are right now
Click to expand...
Very public and extended fall-apart over sleepy Joe. They looked like the fucking Tories.

But meh. Them or Trump I still don't know why I get drawn into this democracy-as-entertainment shit.

Like I've been saying for ages, it's not going to be materially different under either. People will generally earn about the same. The environment will be the same (Dems have liked *heavily* about what they've actually done, as about how performative they've been). Abortion? Well, that's a bit of a differentiator.

Will the rich still get richer and the poor get poorer?

You betcha.
 
SilverHood

SilverHood

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
2,302
Yeah, the difference between the average Republican and Democratic politician can be boiled down to gun rights and abortion. They're 90% the same, which is why it's maddening that we end up with crappy choices for president. There's like 100 million potential president candidates and Trump, Hilary, Biden and now Harris are the best we could come up with for the last few elections.
 
Scouse

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,727
Wij said:
I think there are some very significant differences. The VP openly wants Gilead
Click to expand...
No. He's anti-abortion. Not pro- the subjugation of all women.

I'm with you on a "slippery slope" basis. And I don't like the policy. I'm the beneficiary of the UK abortion policy - and thank fuck for that. But being pro-abortion doesn't mean "get in the fucking kitchen and shut up".

It's impossible to have a reasoned discussion on anything if the first port of call is the most extreme version of what you're trying to say.
 
Wij

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,404
Scouse said:
No. He's anti-abortion. Not pro- the subjugation of all women.

I'm with you on a "slippery slope" basis. And I don't like the policy. I'm the beneficiary of the UK abortion policy - and thank fuck for that. But being pro-abortion doesn't mean "get in the fucking kitchen and shut up".

It's impossible to have a reasoned discussion on anything if the first port of call is the most extreme version of what you're trying to say.
Click to expand...
You are wrong. He’s not just anti-abortion. It’s all out there. He thinks women without kids shouldn’t have the same say in the US. He wants to end no fault divorce. Limit access to contraception. The list of things that they want to fuck up for women is long and scary.

Listen to what is in project 2025. It’s not conspiracy theory. They are literally on telly telling us they want to do this:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm0OuaWadyA
 
Scouse

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,727
It's a conservative think-tank. There's loads of think tanks saying all sorts of things @Wij. Trump has disavowed it*

Our Donald said:
I disagree with some of the things they're saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal
Click to expand...

Project 2025 isn't a manifesto announcement.

It IS a dangerously religiously bent programme. But if you read the thing, there's some valid points in there. But Congress passes the laws. So I guess we'll see what happens.


*Edit: Yes yes, to a certain percentage of disavowal.
 
Wij

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,404
Scouse said:
It's a conservative think-tank. There's loads of think tanks saying all sorts of things @Wij. Trump has disavowed it*



Project 2025 isn't a manifesto announcement.

It IS a dangerously religiously bent programme. But if you read the thing, there's some valid points in there. But Congress passes the laws. So I guess we'll see what happens.


*Edit: Yes yes, to a certain percentage of disavowal.
Click to expand...
They will be his staff in the next administration. We know that. Many work for him already. That is their plan and they will get him to go along with it. What he says now doesn’t matter. He never cares to keep his lies straight. It’s not an issue. That is the GOP agenda. They are telling us this.
 
Scouse

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,727
Wij said:
They will be his staff in the next administration. We know that. Many work for him already. That is their plan and they will get him to go along with it. What he says now doesn’t matter. He never cares to keep his lies straight. It’s not an issue. That is the GOP agenda. They are telling us this.
Click to expand...
Meh. There was similar from the same place before the Regan administration. He did about half of it. I suspect similar.

But there is absolutely a point to be made about the administrative state being antithetical to the intention of the Constitution.

Bothered? Yes I am. But more bothered that the fundamental changes that need to happen won't be happening under either side.
 
Wij

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,404
Scouse said:
Meh. There was similar from the same place before the Regan administration. He did about half of it. I suspect similar.

But there is absolutely a point to be made about the administrative state being antithetical to the intention of the Constitution.

Bothered? Yes I am. But more bothered that the fundamental changes that need to happen won't be happening under either side.
Click to expand...
It is batshit crazy stuff but you can choose not to care sure.
 
Wij

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,404
Scouse said:
Meh.
Click to expand...
Anyway, which bits of the administrative state do you think the founding fathers would particularly object to?

The DOE?
The DOJ?
The EPA?
The FDA?

I think the founding fathers would probably be glad that the approval of medicines was being overseen by professionals rather than non-expert senators who need vast funding from corporations to get reelected.
 
Scouse

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,727
caLLous said:
"no material differences"

...

Click to expand...

It's disingenuous to say that he's going to change the electoral system so they can't vote any more.

He's saying that they're going to change America - to give the people what they want to see happen, and in four years time they can relax, if they don't feel like voting they can go back to apathy - but VOTE FOR ME!

I'll tell you something - the rabid tribalism, the deliberate misconstruals, the twisting or reality that's happening, rather than considered dispassionate discussion, on this very forum, provokes sympathy for Trump in me.

And I hate that. I think he's a cunt. I don't want him to win.

But if this pattern of rabid idiocy from leftists in the US is repeated, the inability to discuss very real issues rationally, the 'you're with us or you're against us' mentality is repeated everywhere - and I believe it is - then it's driving people into the arms of Trump.

If the left doesn't want Trump to win, then the left needs to start fucking listening.
 
Wij

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,404
Basically they tell us what they are going to do on abortion, contraception, divorce, freedom from religion etc, we point it out, you say it’s scaremongering. OK.

Anyway:

www.secularism.org.uk

Secularism and the safeguarding of liberal values

Stephen Evans highlights the myriad threats to secular liberalism and sets out what's needed to preserve it ahead of the NSS's upcoming conference on protecting liberal values.
www.secularism.org.uk www.secularism.org.uk
 
DaGaffer

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,511
Scouse said:
It's disingenuous to say that he's going to change the electoral system so they can't vote any more.

He's saying that they're going to change America - to give the people what they want to see happen, and in four years time they can relax, if they don't feel like voting they can go back to apathy - but VOTE FOR ME!

I'll tell you something - the rabid tribalism, the deliberate misconstruals, the twisting or reality that's happening, rather than considered dispassionate discussion, on this very forum, provokes sympathy for Trump in me.

And I hate that. I think he's a cunt. I don't want him to win.

But if this pattern of rabid idiocy from leftists in the US is repeated, the inability to discuss very real issues rationally, the 'you're with us or you're against us' mentality is repeated everywhere - and I believe it is - then it's driving people into the arms of Trump.

If the left doesn't want Trump to win, then the left needs to start fucking listening.
Click to expand...

Oh God, you said "leftists" in a sentence. You've gone full twat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top Bottom