Page 2 of 3

Re: Politics? Nah

Posted: 15 Jul 2024, 00:09
by Incoming!
Bartek wrote: 11 Jul 2024, 13:50 This may or may not be related, but I guess the main reason is invasion itself. States are usually slow in reacting, thus time was needed to see some changes in the spending area.
Your last comment is so on point. This years conference is focused on increasing funding from NATO countries.

“We are the Priests of the Temple of Syrinx.
Our great computers fill the hallowed halls.”

Re: Politics? Nah

Posted: 17 Jul 2024, 09:50
by alanm
So how long do you reckon after Trump is elected to when then new album drops?
Von clearly meant the second term.

Re: Politics? Nah

Posted: 20 Jul 2024, 22:46
by ruffers
I'm watching a Trump speech live from a rally in Michigan and it's amazing. Kind of free style word association throwing in asides from all over the place.

It's fascinating to watch

He just said he owes his life to an immigration policy because he turned to look at a sign about it when shots were fired.

Re: Politics? Nah

Posted: 21 Jul 2024, 10:32
by Bartek
Even not being a big fan of Orange Goblin , to put it lightly, his major opponent it also not in touch with reality mostly due aging and its natural consequences (I know, it's ageism from my side).

Re: Politics? Nah

Posted: 21 Jul 2024, 12:59
by longtimelurker
ruffers wrote: 20 Jul 2024, 22:46 I'm watching a Trump speech live from a rally in Michigan and it's amazing. Kind of free style word association throwing in asides from all over the place.

It's fascinating to watch
That's how I felt watching him in the run-up to 2016. To me his speeches & rallies seemed to have a lot more energy/entertainment back then, though maybe some of that was due to the newness of it all. Still remember some of his random quotes from time to time and laugh. "I love the poorly educated", no politician but Trump was saying those type of things out loud.

And now Hulk Hogan just gave a primetime speech at the RNC. Wild times we're living in.

Re: Politics? Nah

Posted: 21 Jul 2024, 13:28
by longtimelurker
Bartek wrote: 21 Jul 2024, 10:32 Even not being a big fan of Orange Goblin , to put it lightly, his major opponent it also not in touch with reality mostly due aging and its natural consequences (I know, it's ageism from my side).
Yeah, the physical & mental condition of Biden is legit terrifying. Weeks of debate preparation & presumably drugged to the max. And that's the best they could make him appear.

As much as Eldritch hates Trump, the American media he likes to consume shares a lot of blame in us being in the position we're in right now. They long knew the truth, but have instead been aggressively gaslighting and pressuring people for years.

A mere month ago MSNBC (a Von favorite) was saying that this is the "best version of Biden ever". An actual quote! Biden gaffes were being arrogantly dismissed as "cheap fakes". Or simply not reported at all. Another Eldritch favorite, Seth Meyers, gave Biden the biggest softball interview ever a few months ago. It has since come out that recent Biden interviews were scripted in advance & even edited according the the wishes of Biden's people. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Such a gross and deliberate coverup. You can even go way back to the 2019 Democratic primaries. Julian Castro (then a rising young democrat running for president) called out Biden's memory problems and lack of mental acuity. (doing so ended Castro's political career, surprise surprise)

To Bartek, I would like to respectfully disagree with pinning it solely on age. Bernie Sanders is older than Biden and far far sharper than a lot of dumb youngish Republicans in both the house and senate. You have plenty of much older people in all facets of life who are still competent. Warren Buffet is 93 and drinks 5 cans of coke a day while I think still running Berkshire Hathaway!

Re: Politics? Nah

Posted: 21 Jul 2024, 20:46
by Bartek
Well yes, you're right with these example, yet statistically and biologically the older you are the worst your cognvitive ability become. Fact there are examples proving otherwise doesn't make this wrong.

Saying that Kamila Trump is another opponent as Joe has stepped down. The corpses in her wardrobe can't wait to come out and strangle her (unlike in Donald Harris, who's wardrobe have been searched numerous of times).

People of USofA and the rest of the world must learn again how to deal with Orange Goblin (yet i really want to be wrong here; but more investors from Silicon Valley are supporting the Goblin, and betting on his win, also because he is less willing to make them any trouble and maybe even some tax preferences to come).

Re: Politics? Nah

Posted: 22 Jul 2024, 14:41
by sultan2075
Bartek wrote: 21 Jul 2024, 20:46 Well yes, you're right with these example, yet statistically and biologically the older you are the worst your convitive ability become. Fact there are examples poving otherwise doesn't make this wrong.

Saying that Kamila Trump is another opponent as Joe has stepped down. The corpses in her wardrobe can't wait to come out and strangle her (unlike in Donald Harris, who's wardrobe have been searched numerous of times).

People of USofA and the rest of the world must learn again how to deal with Orange Goblin (yet i really want to be wrong here; but more investors from Silicon Valley are supporting the Goblin, and betting on his win, also because he is less willing to make them any troubble and maybe even some tax preferences to come).
Kamala Harris has a pretty bad reputation in DC, and I notice that Obama does not seem to have endorsed her yet (and he's the real kingmaker, or in this case queenmaker, in the Democratic party). I've got a dear friend who has worked with her in a professional capacity on a couple of occasions and doesn't have anything nice to say about her. She's regarded by a lot of people here as being the worst combination of intellectually lazy and viciously cruel. Staff turnover in her office is pretty high.

I increasingly view American elections as contests between war-criminals and aspiring war-criminals. Ian MacKaye from Fugazi/Minor Threat once commented that he votes for the most anti-war candidate he can. Other than Libertarians or the American Solidarity Party (not even on the ballot in half the country), that is, paradoxically and perhaps surprisingly, Donald Trump. He's the only American president of my lifetime to not launch an invasion of another country (and when pushed to start a war with Iran over a drone being shot down, he refused on the grounds that no one had actually died since it was a drone). Trump's Republican Party is increasingly the party of the American working-class who have seen their children sent overseas to fight and die in the pointless forever wars, and they're tired of it. Can't say I blame them. When he called the invasion of Iraq a terrible idea, he gained a lot of loyalty from that part of the American people. Picking Vance for VP will almost certainly shore up that loyalty, since he's a veteran of those wars and has been very critical of American foreign policy under Bush/Obama/Biden.

Re: Politics? Nah

Posted: 22 Jul 2024, 15:49
by Bartek
She's regarded by a lot of people here as being the worst combination of intellectually lazy and viciously cruel. Staff turnover in her office is pretty high.
That is pretty much what I've heard listening left-wing podcast here. But it's down to people, to media machinery to make people's mind, to convince them by using popularity and voices of celebrities (which is already happening), that Kamala is the best what Democrats has to offer to the people of the USofA (and btw the rest of the world). But to me it looks the same as here in PL, so-called liberals from big cities are puzzled why citizens of mid-size, smaller towns, and villages are not loving them, trying to find good from their perspective "moral" and "intellectual" explanations/excuses to that, throwing words like: "fascism", "populism", but not trying to understand their pains and needs and address it properly. But in USofA is also about representation; so have fun watching how hundreds of millions of dollars are being burned.

Being anti-sending new troops to foreign lands to fight a war that means nothing and change even less, it's obviously right, but on the other hand world is different place now, the grasshopper (China) lays fat, and for some reason both PRCh and USofA seems to be OK with the idea of conflict (either old fashioned mano a mano by sending sons to the foreign land, or other way; anyhow destructive).

Re: Politics? Nah

Posted: 23 Jul 2024, 14:45
by sultan2075
I have no idea who is running the USA right now. To be fair, I never really thought Biden was in charge (his issues were apparent before he was elected), so practically speaking nothing has likely changed. But the fact that it's so blatantly obvious that the president is not actually in charge is concerning for a whole bunch of reasons.

Re: Politics? Nah

Posted: 10 Sep 2024, 17:50
by Electrochrome
Dan wrote: 30 Jun 2024, 01:44
ribbons69 wrote: 30 Jun 2024, 00:36 So here in the UK if a leader is particularly useless, like Boris for instance, his own party have a process that can replace him. Does this not happen in the US?
Yeah, can't Trump's party say they don't want him as a candidate and throw him out?
Or wouldn't they do that because they're all as corrupt as he is??
The idea that as a President he could rule from within a prison cell is just monstrous.
Sure, they can say that. If they want to guarantee an election loss.

Here's the problem: the Republican Party is not popular. Since 1988, they've won the popular vote ONCE, 20 years ago when the USA was actively engaged in two wars. And Trump is the only Republican candidate who can get a lot of people out to vote, there's nobody else since the party has been a full blown cult for a long time now. As far as being as corrupt as he is, they just want to keep their jobs. That's it. The worst thing imaginable for creatures like Ted Cruz or Lindsey Graham is that one day they are "ex-Senators". So they'll get up there and agree that 2+2=5. The Republicans had multiple chances to get rid of him: two impeachments where a conviction would have barred him from office, and the 25th amendment which they could have used on Jan 6. Instead, it got thrown to the courts which declared that he and every POTUS is basically a king.

I do indeed like the UK parliamentary system where if the PM loses the confidence of the party, they can bounce his or her ass out like that. Sure, you may have a PM in office for a month, but that's what can happen. In the USA, you're stuck with 'em for four years.

Re: Politics? Nah

Posted: 30 Oct 2024, 14:04
by Phobia
Ocean Moves wrote: 29 Jun 2024, 06:43 I'll go :

I'd like someone to explain to me in layman's terms why in a country of over 330 million human beings, the only candidates in the electoral race are a convicted criminal (who happens to be a pathological liar)
and a frail octogenarian.
$, easy as that.

Re: Politics? Nah

Posted: 05 Nov 2024, 18:42
by 3Stigmata
Here's the problem: the Republican Party is not popular. Since 1988, they've won the popular vote ONCE, 20 years ago when the USA was actively engaged in two wars. And Trump is the only Republican candidate who can get a lot of people out to vote, there's nobody else since the party has been a full blown cult for a long time now. As far as being as corrupt as he is, they just want to keep their jobs. That's it. The worst thing imaginable for creatures like Ted Cruz or Lindsey Graham is that one day they are "ex-Senators". So they'll get up there and agree that 2+2=5. The Republicans had multiple chances to get rid of him: two impeachments where a conviction would have barred him from office, and the 25th amendment which they could have
This. Well said.

Re: Politics? Nah

Posted: 05 Nov 2024, 18:47
by sultan2075
The popular vote doesn’t matter. “I won the popular vote” is like saying “I won the chess game by taking more pieces off the board.” Well, maybe you did. But that’s not how the game is played, and not how the election is won.

Re: Politics? Nah

Posted: 06 Nov 2024, 10:24
by ruffers
There's a lot of Americans really want a new album.

Re: Politics? Nah

Posted: 06 Nov 2024, 11:25
by abridged
ruffers wrote: 06 Nov 2024, 10:24 There's a lot of Americans really want a new album.
Post of the year! :notworthy: I disliked Harris mainly because of the Democrats facilitating the appalling things going on in Gaza. Obviously, I have no time for Trump either. I feel sorry for Americans with a soul.

Re: Politics? Nah

Posted: 06 Nov 2024, 11:39
by longtimelurker
Unsurprisingly, "kamala IS brat" + Dick Cheney didn't turn out to be the best strategy. Wonder if Eldritch will finally stop watching so much MSNBC now? (still can't get over his "she’s clearly got something that connects to the American people" interview quote)

On a serious note, it sucks to see some really ugly anti-latino racist comments from people on the left (Democrat voters) already. I think most strangers assume I'm Eurasian instead, and my will be spouse is actually East Asian, so maybe I can sidestep being on the receiving end of most of that :von:

Re: Politics? Nah

Posted: 06 Nov 2024, 14:57
by sultan2075
longtimelurker wrote: 06 Nov 2024, 11:39 Unsurprisingly, "kamala IS brat" + Dick Cheney didn't turn out to be the best strategy. Wonder if Eldritch will finally stop watching so much MSNBC now? (still can't get over his "she’s clearly got something that connects to the American people" interview quote)

On a serious note, it sucks to see some really ugly anti-latino racist comments from people on the left (Democrat voters) already. I think most strangers assume I'm Eurasian instead, and my will be spouse is actually East Asian, so maybe I can sidestep being on the receiving end of most of that :von:
The fact that the Harris campaign thought trotting out Daddy Warping and his daughter would win the votes of the people whose children were maimed and killed in their disastrous wars shows just how absolutely out of touch they were.

Re: Politics? Nah

Posted: 06 Nov 2024, 15:29
by Bartek
Well, it's going to be interesting. Obviously I'm more interested in his foreign policy, but since all social things is spreading no slower than, lets say COVID, this might also be contagious. And economy.
Let's see how building USofA autarky will go.

Re: Politics? Nah

Posted: 06 Nov 2024, 17:10
by sharedgum
We have two parties to choose from in the USA, one of which is not great at best and another one that tries to forcefully overturn elections by calling election officials to "find him some votes," conquer the Capitol with weapons, and forcefully remain in power. Also, the Center for Disease Control estimates that the misinformation related to COVID spread by the president-elect was responsible for over 100,000 deaths on top of what would have occurred, which is more than Vietnam. With what she was given, Harris ran a nearly flawless campaign in that there weren't too many obvious gaffes (oh but she laughs weird) and was consistently held to a high standard by the media, especially in comparison to the guy who is just as senile as Biden openly talking at his events about everything ranging from persecuting and shooting his opponents to Arnold Palmer's genitalia. And she made him look ridiculous in that one debate. And while I don't agree with the current administration on international policy, for those who think that the US should be more friendly to Gaza, I think that this is going in the opposite direction. Voting out the party in power is expected when some things aren't going well for people, economic or otherwise, but this is not normal, it is not like McCain or Romney (a decent human being) is on the other side. I am very concerned about us and the rest of the world in the long term, since this seems to be a greater trend.

Re: Politics? Nah

Posted: 06 Nov 2024, 18:37
by Incoming!
Some thoughts :

Misogyny still alive and well (look at early stats)

We are still fighting the US Civil War

Democrats still a mess

9 of 10 states voted down abortion ban

One country lived under the rule of a narcissist fascist for 13 years. We can handle another 4

There won’t be a January 6 uprising

Glad I saw TSOM play in US maybe for last time

Kansas City Chiefs American football ball team won in over time last night. They are now 8-0

Let’s all pray for the US Joint Chiefs to once again have a back up plan if Trump moves his fingers to initiate nuclear use

Re: Politics? Nah

Posted: 07 Nov 2024, 00:28
by sultan2075
Incoming! wrote: 06 Nov 2024, 18:37 Some thoughts :

Misogyny still alive and well (look at early stats)

We are still fighting the US Civil War

Democrats still a mess

9 of 10 states voted down abortion ban

One country lived under the rule of a narcissist fascist for 13 years. We can handle another 4

There won’t be a January 6 uprising

Glad I saw TSOM play in US maybe for last time

Kansas City Chiefs American football ball team won in over time last night. They are now 8-0

Let’s all pray for the US Joint Chiefs to once again have a back up plan if Trump moves his fingers to initiate nuclear use
There are many, many reasons for someone to vote against Harris other than misogyny; that's a lazy argument. She was a vacuous candidate who ran a terrible campaign, and was complicit in hiding Biden's decline from the country. Trump's also the only American president in my lifetime not to start a new war other than Biden (some credit him with 'starting' Ukraine, but I don't). When the neocons in his administration tried to get him to retaliate against Iran for downing a drone, he rejected their advice on the grounds that nobody has been killed. As one of my students put, he's not a 'dove' on foreign policy, he's more like a pigeon - a noisey dove covered in s**t.

Re: Politics? Nah

Posted: 07 Nov 2024, 01:36
by Being645
My condolences to voters from Arab communities in the US, especially Palestinian ones. Biden was definitely not helpful. But putting hopes in Trump, sorry, that's a sad illusion.

Re: Politics? Nah

Posted: 07 Nov 2024, 01:47
by sharedgum
sultan2075 wrote: 07 Nov 2024, 00:28
Incoming! wrote: 06 Nov 2024, 18:37 Some thoughts :

Misogyny still alive and well (look at early stats)

We are still fighting the US Civil War

Democrats still a mess

9 of 10 states voted down abortion ban

One country lived under the rule of a narcissist fascist for 13 years. We can handle another 4

There won’t be a January 6 uprising

Glad I saw TSOM play in US maybe for last time

Kansas City Chiefs American football ball team won in over time last night. They are now 8-0

Let’s all pray for the US Joint Chiefs to once again have a back up plan if Trump moves his fingers to initiate nuclear use
There are many, many reasons for someone to vote against Harris other than misogyny; that's a lazy argument. She was a vacuous candidate who ran a terrible campaign, and was complicit in hiding Biden's decline from the country. Trump's also the only American president in my lifetime not to start a new war other than Biden (some credit him with 'starting' Ukraine, but I don't). When the neocons in his administration tried to get him to retaliate against Iran for downing a drone, he rejected their advice on the grounds that nobody has been killed. As one of my students put, he's not a 'dove' on foreign policy, he's more like a pigeon - a noisey dove covered in s**t.
I think that this reads to me like a justification for the inexcusable. Obviously, it did happen, and I don't know all the reasons why, I am sure that they differ from person to person, but misogyny was a big part of it. It is interesting to me that Kamala's electoral map looks eerily similar to Clinton's.

I don't buy the no wars started argument. In general, after the Iraq and Afghanistan wars started by Bush, US has been involved less in foreign wars and in more limited ways. I truly don't understand how people can claim that Trump is good in that regard while at the same knowing full well that he refused to acknowledge that Biden had beaten him and that Trump tried to take the power forcefully back in 2020. He should be in jail for that, not be the president. If he was willing to do that in 2020, how can people not connect the dots and realize that he would be willing to do something similar, if not worse, both here and internationally? Am I missing something? His own hand-picked chief of staff from his own party called him a fascist. And what did Harris (and H. Clinton) do after losing? She gracefully congratulated her opponent. For this reason alone, which speaks volumes, in my opinion, there is no comparison between the two candidates in terms of who should be disqualified from running the country.

And regarding Biden's decline, how about Trump's decline? He is swaying to Ave Maria and performing sexual acts on microphones. He has no business running the country.

This travesty is 100% on the American people, who definitely know who he is by now. Trying to elevate someone who should be getting 5% of the vote above someone who is clearly far more qualified for the job and nitpicking things here and there is just not right. There should be no reason for anyone but a fringe to vote for him given the threat that he presents. And yes, as I have noted, I realize that this did happen, and I don't have all the answers, and this is just my personal opinion.

Re: Politics? Nah

Posted: 07 Nov 2024, 02:11
by sultan2075
sharedgum wrote: 07 Nov 2024, 01:47
sultan2075 wrote: 07 Nov 2024, 00:28
Incoming! wrote: 06 Nov 2024, 18:37 Some thoughts :

Misogyny still alive and well (look at early stats)

We are still fighting the US Civil War

Democrats still a mess

9 of 10 states voted down abortion ban

One country lived under the rule of a narcissist fascist for 13 years. We can handle another 4

There won’t be a January 6 uprising

Glad I saw TSOM play in US maybe for last time

Kansas City Chiefs American football ball team won in over time last night. They are now 8-0

Let’s all pray for the US Joint Chiefs to once again have a back up plan if Trump moves his fingers to initiate nuclear use
There are many, many reasons for someone to vote against Harris other than misogyny; that's a lazy argument. She was a vacuous candidate who ran a terrible campaign, and was complicit in hiding Biden's decline from the country. Trump's also the only American president in my lifetime not to start a new war other than Biden (some credit him with 'starting' Ukraine, but I don't). When the neocons in his administration tried to get him to retaliate against Iran for downing a drone, he rejected their advice on the grounds that nobody has been killed. As one of my students put, he's not a 'dove' on foreign policy, he's more like a pigeon - a noisey dove covered in s**t.
I think that this reads to me like a justification for the inexcusable. Obviously, it did happen, and I don't know all the reasons why, I am sure that they differ from person to person, but misogyny was a big part of it. It is interesting to me that Kamala's electoral map looks eerily similar to Clinton's.

I don't buy the no wars started argument. In general, after the Iraq and Afghanistan wars started by Bush, US has been involved less in foreign wars and in more limited ways. I truly don't understand how people can claim that Trump is good in that regard while at the same knowing full well that he refused to acknowledge that Biden had beaten him and that Trump tried to take the power forcefully back in 2020. He should be in jail for that, not be the president. If he was willing to do that in 2020, how can people not connect the dots and realize that he would be willing to do something similar, if not worse, both here and internationally? Am I missing something? His own hand-picked chief of staff from his own party called him a fascist. And what did Harris (and H. Clinton) do after losing? She gracefully congratulated her opponent. For this reason alone, which speaks volumes, in my opinion, there is no comparison between the two candidates in terms of who should be disqualified from running the country.

And regarding Biden's decline, how about Trump's decline? He is swaying to Ave Maria and performing sexual acts on microphones. He has no business running the country.

This travesty is 100% on the American people, who definitely know who he is by now. Trying to elevate someone who should be getting 5% of the vote above someone who is clearly far more qualified for the job and nitpicking things here and there is just not right. There should be no reason for anyone but a fringe to vote for him given the threat that he presents. And yes, as I have noted, I realize that this did happen, and I don't have all the answers, and this is just my personal opinion.
You're too outraged.

I'm not justifying anything. I'm explaining.

I didn't vote for him. Lots of people did. If you're an American, people you know and love probably did. They're not bad or evil, they looked at the choices and concluded she was the worse choice. She lost the 'heartland' vote when she was endorsed by Dick Cheney. I've had multiple young male students tell me they were voting for Trump because they don't want to get drafted and sent to Ukraine (on the 'no new wars' argument it's worth remembering that Dennis Kucinich tried to impeach Obama over Libya. And let's not forget Syria and the horn of Africa. A whole lot of small and undeclared wars in the Obama years - of course, the US hasn't actually declared war since World War II). On top of that, 'it's the economy, stupid' as someone once said. When you're the sitting VP you can't blame the price of eggs, the interest rate, or the housing crisis on the guy who's been out of office for four years.

If you want a justification, there's a thought-provoking piece by Daniel McCarthy in the New York Times that's worth reading.