Election 2024 Part III: Out with the old!

Who do you think will win in November?


  • Total voters
    101
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
These kind of headlines makes me think if the water supply in US is tainted with lead or laced with narcotics or something!
The Marxists, the socialists, they're contaminating our bodily fluids, they're POISONING us, they're just trying to re-establish their FAILED revolution and try again with their poison. Fluorination of our waters is bad, and unpatriotic.
 
The Marxists, the socialists, they're contaminating our bodily fluids, they're POISONING us, they're just trying to re-establish their FAILED revolution and try again with their poison. Fluorination of our waters is bad, and unpatriotic.
Also... THEY'RE EATING THE DOGS!!
 
I'd like to see Trump spend two weeks in Gaza and walk the beaches to evaluate it's development potential.
 
I wouldn't. He would get a massive boost in the polls if he did something like that.
:lol: Where would he stay? Would he throw paper towels to starving Palestinians? Would Hama shoot him or take him hostage? Would the Palestinians drag him from his security and beat him? All of the above I would hope.
 
If you can get around the paywall, this link has a very nice interactive that allows you to play out any swing state scenario you like.


 
:lol: Where would he stay? Would he throw paper towels to starving Palestinians? Would Hama shoot him or take him hostage? Would the Palestinians drag him from his security and beat him? All of the above I would hope.

All of the above, plus getting hit by an Israeli airstrike.
 
These kind of headlines makes me think if the water supply in US is tainted with lead or laced with narcotics or something!
From my perspective over the other side of the pond 2016-2020's Trump was okayish/tolerableish:undecide:...but now...how can the republican party really consider him a candidate for POTUS!?:crazyeye: Why couldn't the world have a Haley VS Harris!?:shake:


There's basically 3 groups (with a lot of overlap) which make Trump a viable candidate. The reactionary racists, who see in Trump a way to roll back the fact that white privilege had been in decline. The Failed Christians, who think they're the only real Christians, even though they don't follow Christian teaching. And the economic elitists. Who just want more tax breaks. Trump gives enough to all 3 groups to have their undying loyalty.
 
<looks at the country>

Seems an honest take.

Spoiler :


 
She shouldn't record calls like that. Reminds me of the Wire scene where Carcetti(a dem) has to ask the Governor(an R) for school aid. He nearly doesn't, because of the ego bruise.

Not gonna lie, I think recording it is a little dirty in that it makes DeSantis less likely to ask, which she would have to know beforehand. It could be said that his pride will hurt Florida, accurately. It could also be said she probably shouldn't put him in a position where his pride may be affected, given the real consequences.

Not wholly surprising it would happen like that. The age where it was expected to act in the national interest is past and its remnants are eroding swiftly. It's a more competitive, partisan era now.
 
Wouldn't that also be an argument against the surveillance state?
 
She shouldn't record calls like that. Reminds me of the Wire scene where Carcetti(a dem) has to ask the Governor(an R) for school aid. He nearly doesn't, because of the ego bruise.

Not gonna lie, I think recording it is a little dirty in that it makes DeSantis less likely to ask, which she would have to know beforehand. It could be said that his pride will hurt Florida, accurately. It could also be said she probably shouldn't put him in a position where his pride may be affected, given the real consequences.

Not wholly surprising it would happen like that. The age where it was expected to act in the national interest is past and its remnants are eroding swiftly. It's a more competitive, partisan era now.
Presumably they are recorded with the consent of both parties, else they would be illegal in many states.
 
Wouldn't that also be an argument against the surveillance state?
Yes. It'll become a larger thing in coming decades. More societies are shifting to communication methods more easily tracked and recorded. Dictatorships will be able to more thoroughly force expression in the "public face" in areas where previously the private face would come out. That'll lend more stability to some pretty nasty regimes by reducing the reproductive rates of ideas of dissent.
Presumably they are recorded with the consent of both parties, else they would be illegal in many states
Better to keep all those talks behind a curtain in any case. The more confidence the speakers have it all stays obscured, the more they can speak as people rather than in the characters created and maintained for their public life.
 
Better to keep all those talks behind a curtain in any case. The more confidence the speakers have it all stays obscured, the more they can speak as people rather than in the characters created and maintained for their public life.
And why is this a benefit? We are discussing public servants, right? They should accept these stakes when they take the job, otherwise there's no transparency or oversight when bad decisions are made.
 
The Failed Christians, who think they're the only real Christians, even though they don't follow Christian teaching.
They are really Christians, Trump and old testament God basically carbon copies.

Imagine Trump asking someone to sacrifice their son to prove loyalty to him. Pretty easy, no?

Talking unity out of one side of one's mouth and chosen people out the other. Trump/yahweh, same personality type.
 
I think that the highest-ranking public servants should have their discussions recorded, but maybe I'm old-fashioned like that.
 
And why is this a benefit? We are discussing public servants, right? They should accept these stakes when they take the job, otherwise there's no transparency or oversight when bad decisions are made.
The vast majority of political compromise more or less needs a lack of transparency to one degree or another. More complete transparency would effectively end horse trading. This unglamorous process is how things have historically gotten done in America more or less since its foundation. The public servant in American democracy would be left less able to serve without it, not more.

Instituting a panopticon will not really positively effect anything. It will more likely simply end communication than improve it, with a more powerless government consequently. People would of course begin to reject that government and culture, perhaps even modernity itself. Which... probably doesn't lead to anything good. Some force would have to arise and you see where I'm going.
I think that the highest-ranking public servants should have their discussions recorded, but maybe I'm old-fashioned like that.
This would fairly be said to be more new school than old fashioned. Quite radically so.
 
The vast majority of political compromise more or less needs a lack of transparency to one degree or another. More complete transparency would effectively end horse trading. This unglamorous process is how things have historically gotten done in America more or less since its foundation. The public servant in American democracy would be left less able to serve without it, not more.

Instituting a panopticon will not really positively effect anything. It will more likely simply end communication than improve it, with a more powerless government consequently. People would of course begin to reject that government and culture, perhaps even modernity itself. Which... probably doesn't lead to anything good. Some force would have to arise and you see where I'm going.
"the way things have always been done" continues to degrade as a reason to keep doing things the way they've always been done, to the extent it's almost tautological in nature.
 
"the way things have always been done" continues to degrade as a reason to keep doing things the way they've always been done, to the extent it's almost tautological in nature.
I'd be more likely to agree with this if I believed the norm meant to replace it capable of success. It is not. This starry eyed and hopeful belief in transparency would have terribly negative unintended consequences.

Society and government by extension already has serious authenticity problems. This would not help. It would make it far worse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom