2024 Presidential Election Thread

One thing we can all agree upon:

Sting > Bret Hart 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

That's what you got from her speech? 

Oh she had other things like more insults. But apparently that wasn't enough, because her husband came out and had his own spin on facts.

What was it that either of them said should have pleased me, in your opinion?

Or, if it's easier for you, tell me what about their speeches pleased you.

posted by Trueblue23

One thing we can all agree upon:

Sting > Bret Hart 

I think Sting made a better heel. Bret Hart turned me away by spitting on somebody. Fuck that guy.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Perhaps in the long term. But, people and state after state have rejected your view and understand that they prefer options. 

There is a very big difference from papers and real life and choices. 

The only option that people/states really want to use is their opportunities to punt when necessary and to carry the ball to make a sensational touchdown. I

If the medical and scientific communities teamed up to say "life begins at conception", they would be ridiculed, censored and banned by the Dems in the same exact way that was done to the medical and scientific communities who spoke to the Covid situation. 

I mean, it's already been done to the public. One of the good things that was found out from the Twitter Files was how the Dems* in govt controlled that narrative through media. 

* some Dems in govt tried to speak out against them doing that and were promptly ignored ie: Ro Khanna

posted by CenterBHSFan

I've been thinking a lot lately about when did the Democrats become so mean, sneering and unlikeable. I really want to pin this down on Hillary Clinton, but it started before her. 

I say the same exact thing about conservatives. It's easy to pin on Trump but it started well before him. Limbaugh's rise in the early 90s? Gingrich? 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Perhaps in the long term. But, people and state after state have rejected your view and understand that they prefer options. 

There is a very big difference from papers and real life and choices. 

You said my view when I posted a study from biologists  was that a mistake or did you not understand the premise?

posted by CenterBHSFan

I think Sting made a better heel. Bret Hart turned me away by spitting on somebody. Fuck that guy.

They're ALL better than Bill Goldberg. That stiff ass ended Bret's career.

posted by jmog

You said my view when I posted a study from biologists  was that a mistake or did you not understand the premise?

So you would ban Morning after or Plan B pills or any contraceptives that prevent a fertilzed egg from implanting in the uterus.

posted by jmog

What does biology say, is it a human? And when? That’s what is important. 

Not to a statistically significant portion of the participants in your cited article.

posted by geeblock

So you would ban Morning after or Plan B pills or any contraceptives that prevent a fertilzed egg from implanting in the uterus.

Can't speak for everyone but I wouldn't ban those things. I've stated my biggest issue with it.

posted by bigorangebuck22
I say the same exact thing about conservatives. It's easy to pin on Trump but it started well before him. Limbaugh's rise in the early 90s? Gingrich? 

Overall, the truth is that national politicians in general have become that way. To me, it doesn't come down to one factor.

Part is, as you alluded to, the rise of voices (in and out of office) who took things to an "our way or no way" level with their stances. 

There also are all the politicians entrenched in heavy Red/Blue areas who essentially can look at themselves as royalty because they know they're in office as long as they desire. Get that mentality and you only have to answer to your base and if anyone doesn't like it, what are they gonna do?

And I'd say a huge factor is the somewhat recent deluge of both 24/7 news/blog outlets and social media. A lot of politicians can play up to their bases by trying out social media "zingers" directed at the other party that their bases will eat up. And with how anyone can find outlets that cater directly to their beliefs so they can dismiss anything they disagree with as "fake", you get more division, which allows politicians to only have to worry about playing to their base even more.

posted by Heretic

There also are all the politicians entrenched in heavy Red/Blue areas who essentially can look at themselves as royalty because they know they're in office as long as they desire. Get that mentality and you only have to answer to your base and if anyone doesn't like it, what are they gonna do?

A big part of the problem. I know I'm my district it's been very red since the whole Charlie Wilson (D congressman) voted for Obamacare after almost his whole constituency told him not to. It was a huge betrayal because he did it for his party, when he didn't even know what was in the bill. He got voted out the next year. But situations like that, putting party over people, have made my area so distrustful of Dems that they'll vote straight red tickets rather than risk betrayal again. That's probably the biggest reason people in the left/right vote straight tickets - once bitten, twice shy. I personally vote for whoever on the more local stuff, but not every body is willing to do that after they lost their job, lost their home and then get told they have to pay more in taxes. 

I also think that if the Dems dropped their tax and spend ideas and decided to plan on spending reformation and other things that the Republicans wouldn't be able to win dog catcher in my district. 

Gonna be interesting if RFK actually drops out and backs Trump tomorrow.

posted by iclfan2

Gonna be interesting if RFK actually drops out and backs Trump tomorrow.

And funny because it's long been assumed that RFK hurts Dems more, to the point where the "Pro-Democracy Party" tried to keep RFK off ballots, too.

posted by gut

And funny because it's long been assumed that RFK hurts Dems more, to the point where the "Pro-Democracy Party" tried to keep RFK off ballots, too.

I mean, is it a shock that the Ds just might have shot themselves in the foot?

"We're worried that Brain Worm Guy might pull just enough votes from us to help them, so keep him off the ballot!!! W-w-w-what? He just dropped out and endorsed the other guy as a big F-U to us!?! WWWWWHHHHHHYYYYYYY????????"

With the added bonus that, personally, I wasn't even sure he'd hurt the Ds more. I felt he had a decent chance to pull as many moderate Rs that don't want to deal with the Trump circus as he did to pull the moderate Ds that aren't all about the progressive movement and in the end, he'd take a couple percent from both sides.

posted by Heretic

With the added bonus that, personally, I wasn't even sure he'd hurt the Ds more. I felt he had a decent chance to pull as many moderate Rs that don't want to deal with the Trump circus as he did to pull the moderate Ds that aren't all about the progressive movement and in the end, he'd take a couple percent from both sides.

True.  Although I think he's polling 5-10% in some swing states, where this election will be decided by only 0.1% of the vote in those states.  If Trump nets 50k of RFK's votes in those states that could be more than the difference.

RFK's comments about the Dems no longer being the party of his father are more interesting.  You could say the same about the party of Reagan, which is only a sliver in the middle of neocons and MAGA.

Kamala winning might just be good for voters on both sides in 2028.  MAGA fades away, and the rest of the country gets a taste of failed far left policies.

posted by gut

True.  Although I think he's polling 5-10% in some swing states, where this election will be decided by only 0.1% of the vote in those states.  If Trump nets 50k of RFK's votes in those states that could be more than the difference.

RFK's comments about the Dems no longer being the party of his father are more interesting.  You could say the same about the party of Reagan, which is only a sliver in the middle of neocons and MAGA.

Kamala winning might just be good for voters on both sides in 2028.  MAGA fades away, and the rest of the country gets a taste of failed far left policies.

Which is why I really wanted the Dems to have a primary and select Gavin Newsome as their nominee. Because the only way for the Dem voters to learn a damn thing is to let them feel it. But instead there "was a process" and we are getting Kamala. Well, that's fine by me, too. One of the most sadistic politicians in the US, hard to find another one to compete with her level of sadism. And she's vowing to continue that work. Bloody fabulous!

posted by gut

Kamala winning might just be good for voters on both sides in 2028.  MAGA fades away, and the rest of the country gets a taste of failed far left policies.

Which is why I really wanted the Dems to have a primary and select Gavin Newsome as their nominee. Because the only way for the Dem voters to learn a damn thing is to let them feel it. But instead there "was a process" and we are getting Kamala. Well, that's fine by me, too. One of the most sadistic politicians in the US, hard to find another one to compete with her level of sadism. And she's vowing to continue that work. Bloody fabulous!

I do wonder if Kennedy planned for his running mate to spill the beans about their crossroads. If so, he will endorse Trump to get a cabinet position. If not, he will just drop out and tell both parties to fuck off.

posted by CenterBHSFan

I do wonder if Kennedy planned for his running mate to spill the beans about their crossroads. If so, he will endorse Trump to get a cabinet position.

That would cause such an epic meltdown on the left.  I'm sure as we speak the NY AGs are coming up with a way to charge that quid-pro-quo as a felony.  Man, Trump and Kennedy and if they can somehow bundle Joe Rogan and Elon Musk in the deal....

Of course, there probably should be some sort of law against that kind of horse trading.  Except that kind of horse trading has been going on for ages.