Recent Posts

Show posts from buddies only

Like many members of the Trump cult, the OP has been fed the narrative that Biden is senile and barely functional, despite massive amounts of objective evidence to the contrary.  As such, if Biden does perform competently in the debate, they have already pre-decided that he must have been drugged to help him perform, rather than entertain the possibility that they may have been wrong all along.

It’s not a binary, though. Do you really, in your heart of hearts, think Biden is as sharp as he was in 2015?

It need not be dementia. He has a history of brain bleeds. Could’ve easily had a small stroke that was covered up between 2017-2020. Could be doped up on antidepressants after Beau died.

But the man had a certain vigor, a certain sharpness and quickness mentally. This is the guy who wiped the floor with Paul Ryan in 2012. He isn’t the same. It’s not apostasy to believe your own eyes.

If you had been posting here in 2012, you would have been one of the many people talking about how Biden was too old and needed to be dropped from the ticket. It's the same criticism of him year after year, how a few years ago he was great but suddenly he's not anymore

Actually I watched Biden live on television the night of the debate with Ryan, whom I thought was a creep and a sociopath, and I was incredibly impressed and hoping he would run in 2016. When he didn't run and Hillary did instead, I was greatly disappointed as I felt he could've beaten Trump. Biden is not the same as he was and you cannot blame purely age. Is it dementia? Was it a stroke? Is he hopped upon anti-depressants? I don't know. But he is different. I trust my eyes, I trust my ears.

There is loyalty, and then there is slavish devotion and gaslighting your own self.

Yes, yes, the posters here who said he was having problems back in 2012 and needed to be dropped from the ticket (there were lots of them, just search the archives) all insisted that they thought Biden was fine in 2008/2004/insert whatever year you want, and that their concerns were brand new, even though you can go deeper into the archives and see that actually people were raising those same concerns in 2008, and earlier years. And though this forum didn't exist then obviously, you can look at other sources and see that people were calling Biden a lightweight and mentally not-all-there even back in 1988.

I fail to see the relevance of the opinions of people who posted here in 2012 versus what I have seen and heard from the man myself, with my own eyes and ears. Your argument seems to be because some people felt this way in 2012, that means it is in no way true and he has not changed at all? I fail to see your argument.

Hilarious briefing in the Times that Sunak needs to go more negative and attack Keir over his support for Corbyn- ironic as the Tories have been flogging that horse for the last 3 years.

Those voters who care about this have already made up their mind and I suspect Labour have a good response- ‘Keir kicked him out- why didn’t Rishi do the same with Truss’?

They also wanted more attacks over Keirs record as a lawyer- we were promised for years that CCHQ had a big file on this but tbh they have already tried this attack before and Sunak even mentioned it in the TV debate.

hopefully it’s Haley or Youngkin

Come on, Fetterman is a Biden loyalist.

I really don't know. Leaning Tim Scott.Trump wants someone who is a complete suck-up and who'd never upstage him or take the attention away from him. Also, his advisors will be pushing him towards picking a POC or a woman. Scott seems to tick most of the boxes.

I'm not excusing this, but if Trump were to do this nobody would bat an eye.

Maybe this is just Fetterman being a "populist."

You cannot respond to every single failing of an incumbent Democrat by saying, "but Trump..." Everyone knows what Trump is, and he has nothing to do with this particular moment.

The fact of the matter is that Fetterman acted immaturely and in a manner not befitting his office. His continual lack of respect for his office and for the gravity of his title is always on display. Obama, who was considered a "casual President" could put on a suit jacket and shirt. I'm expected at my job to wear a uniform, shouldn't Fetterman wear his?

But to the matter at hand, for such a supposed "everyman" his contempt for the regular person is pretty shocking.

You can when Trump lowered the standard for everybody.

Right now there are former felons applying to jobs and getting rejected due to their past, and yet one has possibly over a 50-50 chance to be the f***ing President.

When Trump becomes irrelevant, if ever, then we can actually move on from him.

Do you care to respond to the topic at hand, and actually comment on Fetterman's behavior itself, or do you wish to continue retorting to "BUT TRUMP"?

Mayhaps my glasses aren't as strong as they appear, perhaps my vision is dimmer than I thought it was...But I do not see the name 'Trump' in the thread title, and...I watched it again, I don't see him in the video.

Perhaps you have some sort of special vision which allows you to see Trump dancing upon Fetterman's shoulder, whispering in his ear, guiding his action?

If not, I retort: Will you comment on Fetterman's behavior?

I already said I am not excusing him. That's an admonishment.

So after all the ranting and raving about Western hypocrisy via Israel you’re self admitting to being a bad faith and give Russia a pass on its awful conduct that you won’t give Israel’s because one is more of an ally than the other. Also spare me this “oh what could we do?” routine both your country and South Africa (whom you also rooted on still trading with Russia) threatening with cutting off trade would go a long on Russia’s ability to continue this war

Not at all, as I’ve never pretended to treat these matters through only the eyes of “Morals and Principles”, I always take the “Geopolitical” factor into equal and important consideration.

Otherwise you end up turning into Gabriel Boric or like you! That’s the burden YOU choose to carry by forcing yourself to always be morally consistent.

“Morals and Principles” are an universal truth while “Geopolitics” are way more subjective but you cannot simply act like they are complete separate entities. Countries should follow their self-interest without compromising their morals in the best possible way they can.

I don’t believe in either “Moral” purists and false saints that are shallow and overly-idealistic (Like you, inevitably bound to contradiction because that’s an impossible standard to follow) or “Geopolitics realists truthers” that are overly-pragmatic and are capable of the worst possible stuff for self-interest only (the OSR types). There is a possible way of finding the best balance, which is inherently different for each reality.

I don’t support everything that is purely in our interest. I oppose:

- our enabling of Azerbaijan

- I did not support arming the Syrian rebels and viewed Assad as the lesser evil against the rebels

- l did not cheer on the Wagner attempted coup in Russia


I don’t just support Israel cause it’s in American interests too . I also believe it’s the moral position as well. I believe supporting Palestine is immoral and fully believe that Palestinian nationalism as it currently exists needs to be destroyed

I agree that the cultural environment is more right-leaning than it was in 2020.
In 2020 there was a LOT of left-wing trends especially around BLM and anti-Trump stuff in general, even from typically apolitical sources.
Nowadays you just don't hear nearly as much from that. Perhaps part of it is due to the activist left focusing all their attention on Gaza (which they oppose Biden on) compared to BLM in 2020 (which they aligned with Biden on).

It comes and goes. The social change fervor in American politics typically is propelled in opposition to who is in the White House. Bush’s term spurred a lot of anti-war activism, and Obama’s spurred a lot of anti-government/anti-immigrant fervor on the right. Trump had the #MeToo and BLM protests all happen. Now Biden’s is Gaza and illegal immigration.

If Trump gets back in, the pendulum will swing again in reaction to him/GOP.

True. Although that doesn't excuse Trump coming into power again. Americans ought to consider who they believe is more likely to listen to them when they protest a President. Trump certainly isn't open to listening to anyone, and impending protests in his second term will be quashed and derided. Having a good faith President, like Biden, even if he isn't perfect, is worth its weight in gold compared to the likely disarray of the next Trump administration.

Assuming this article is correct on the voting patterns of the parties, don't you think it should be the Trump campaign that is investing in a GOTV operation? Biden will have the upper hand in getting his lower-propensity voters to vote.

Exactly this - his entire polling lead is built on people who have never voted before. Yet his team is seemingly doing nothing to actually get them out. Biden has the upper hand here if he can coalesce his coalition together.

The problem is that Trump also had an awful ground game in 2016 and he still managed to energize lots of low propensity voters.

Except those were the WWC votes who voted for Trump because they liked him. That was the Trump base.

These new Trump 2024 voters are mostly disillusioned anti-Biden voters who don’t have the same personal attachment to Trump as his WWC base.

I meant to write 2020 in that post, not 2016. In 2020 he got 11 million more votes than in 2016 with no ground game. Loads of low propensity or even first time voters.

So after all the ranting and raving about Western hypocrisy via Israel you’re self admitting to being a bad faith and give Russia a pass on its awful conduct that you won’t give Israel’s because one is more of an ally than the other. Also spare me this “oh what could we do?” routine both your country and South Africa (whom you also rooted on still trading with Russia) threatening with cutting off trade would go a long on Russia’s ability to continue this war

Not at all, as I’ve never pretended to treat these matters through only the eyes of “Morals and Principles”, I always take the “Geopolitical” factor into equal and important consideration.

Otherwise you end up turning into Gabriel Boric or like you! That’s the burden YOU choose to carry by forcing yourself to always be morally consistent.

“Morals and Principles” are an universal truth while “Geopolitics” are way more subjective but you cannot simply act like they are complete separate entities. Countries should follow their self-interest without compromising their morals in the best possible way they can.

I don’t believe in either “Moral” purists and false saints that are shallow and overly-idealistic (Like you, inevitably bound to contradiction because that’s an impossible standard to follow) or “Geopolitics realists truthers” that are overly-pragmatic and are capable of the worst possible stuff for self-interest only (the OSR types). There is a possible way of finding the best balance, which is inherently different for each reality.