By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - 2024 US Presidential Election

LegitHyperbole said:
jason1637 said:

John Cena or Stephen A Smith need to run next time on the Dem ticket. Unfortunately im being dead serious.

Idiocracy achieved. 

Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson said fairly recently that he was approached by one of the parties to run for some type of political position. It sure sounded like it was for Prez, and he made it sound like he is interested, just not now since his kids are young.

He makes it pretty clear he's a Dem, so odds are good it was the Dems who approached him.

Imagine a Gabbard vs Johnson election.



Around the Network
Tober said:

Been watching some reactions on US newschannels like ABC, MSBC and CNN. They are all talking about that Harris' campaign is not to blame. That it was great! Not surprisingly, because there are a $1 Billion reasons not too.

They sure don't want to piss of the DMC or have them thinking "mmmm, perhaps we should not have sunk a huge part of that campaign money in ads on traditional media channels. Let's do that different next time".

So instead they blame, who would have guessed, the Voter.

Identity group-A did not show up, Identity group-B dissapointed, Identity group-C are cultist, Identity group-D what where they thinking?!

As a previous poster on this treat pointed out, Liberal policies seem to be more popular. If so, it must be a messaging issue, a.k.a. Campaign issue. But you'll never hear these pundits say that.

-Cheney's endorse Harris-

The Dems and MSM brag about the endorsement...

Waaaait what?

-Putin endorses Harris-

The Dems and MSM blame Americans, and not a word about Russia...

Waaaait what?



jason1637 said:

John Cena or Stephen A Smith need to run next time on the Dem ticket. Unfortunately im being dead serious.

You may be right which is sad...I hope the UK doesn't go down this route, I was relieved after multiple clowns that we have a boring, typical politician, not that I don't have criticisms of Starmer but I don't give a single fuck about his charisma as long as he gets the job done, a boring politician is better than an idiotic clown.

My criticisms of Starmer is that he's trying too hard to appeal to the right and by next election his gained voters are just going to swap back to Tories (or Reform). There's no room on the right, he should realise he won largely in part due to this being a protest vote against Tories (14 years) of rule, Labour isn't going to get the same length of time to fix things as Tories received to screw things up.

There's already Tories and Reform for the right. SNP for the Scots. Labour needs to focus on shoring up the left base, which doesn't necessarily alienate centrists, you just need strong policies which can be clearly communicated as beneficial to the voter. The UK doesn't piss its pants at the sight of any shred of left-wing economic policies.

Someone mentioned UK's Parliament being made up better than America's but honestly I hate FPTP and would have much preferred Proportional Representation because it would have forced Labour into a coalition with Lib Dems and Greens. It would come with the downside of Reform gaining more seats but they'd be nowhere near a majority still. As it stands, UK may have multiple parties but for the most part, everyone will just vote Tories/Labour anyway in effect making it a two party system, Lmao. SNP has collapsed and Lib Dems were irrelevant for years. New parties have to get a horrific amount of votes before they ever get any seats. By next election there's a strong chance everyone surrenders their protest voting and just goes back to Tories/Labour but I'm rooting for Lib Dems gaining even more seats.



EricHiggin said:
Tober said:

Been watching some reactions on US newschannels like ABC, MSBC and CNN. They are all talking about that Harris' campaign is not to blame. That it was great! Not surprisingly, because there are a $1 Billion reasons not too.

They sure don't want to piss of the DMC or have them thinking "mmmm, perhaps we should not have sunk a huge part of that campaign money in ads on traditional media channels. Let's do that different next time".

So instead they blame, who would have guessed, the Voter.

Identity group-A did not show up, Identity group-B dissapointed, Identity group-C are cultist, Identity group-D what where they thinking?!

As a previous poster on this treat pointed out, Liberal policies seem to be more popular. If so, it must be a messaging issue, a.k.a. Campaign issue. But you'll never hear these pundits say that.

-Cheney's endorse Harris-

The Dems and MSM brag about the endorsement...

Waaaait what?

-Putin endorses Harris-

The Dems and MSM blame Americans, and not a word about Russia...

Waaaait what?

Nobody talks about it because everyone could see that Putin was trolling and not serious about his endorsement of Harris.

Also yeah, Democrats shouldn't have bothered with the Republican endorsements clearly.

Last edited by Ryuu96 - 6 days ago

The_Yoda said:
Torillian said:

I'll extend an olive branch: I totally get it, something's gone wrong. But I can't help but be frustrated when people on the right in this very thread make shitty posts like the one a couple above. That's totally dismissive and derisive but for some reason it's only the left who has to watch their rhetoric. The right has figured out how to make the shitty rhetoric a feature rather than a bug and it is wholly frustrating. People of positions of power on the right made jokes about the attack on Paul Pelosi while the democratic party in its entirety gets blamed if someone random on facebook does the same for Trump's assassination attempts. 

Here's a simple example. see if any republican on TV ever calls it the democratic party, no instead they call it the democrat party as a little insult every time. Or mispronounces people's names or says "Barack Houssein Obama". Is there anything like that from the left that is from positions of power rather than just random left internet users?

Trump is responsible for Jan 6th but none of these guys are responsible for radicalizing at least a couple individuals that tried to assassinate Trump .... seems a pretty big double standard to me.  

Bigger question is WHICH January 6th are we talking about? Are we talking about the January 6th 2017 insurrection? ;)

Inauguration protests: Police injured, more than 200 arrested | CNN Politics

Jan 6, 2017: Democrats object and disrupt final count of Electoral Votes.

Some people on these forums have amnesia, don't you think? I think a dose of reality needs to smack them in the face. But but but Russian collusion! We need to remove Donald Trump because of Russian collusion!! Bunch of tin foil hat conspiracy theorists who tried to remove a sitting president based on bullshit. But but he made a phone call to Zelensky!! 

It is also interesting that the most racist comments are coming from radical leftists on these very forums. For example, I have seen the use of people of color (POC) on these very forums ALL THE TIME!

Democrats 1950's:

Colored people are not allowed into this area. Only white people can enter.

----------------Mirror Image--------------------

Democrats of today:
People of color are allowed into these safe spaces. White people are not allowed to enter.

To make sure I get my point across... people of color is just the reverse word order of colored people. *Mic drop* Another way to segregate people is to create safe spaces. *Mic drop* I don't need to cite any stupid news article. I don't need any proof that liberals use these racist abhorrent words or segregate people based on race. We have all watched and listened to the use of POC on these forums time and time again from democrats and democrats only. Hell...it is freaking cited in the damn CNN article I cited above if anyone needs that proof. 

CNN article:

“The only source of light on this miserable day is the massive, multi-racial, multi-generational progressive resistance movement led by women and people of color that’s already emerging to confront Donald Trump’s agenda of hate and growing stronger every single day,” Democracy for America Executive Director Charles Chamberlain said in a statement following the inaugural ceremony.

Can't wait to see the racist democrats on these forums argue against me on any of these points. Anyone who defends the use of people of color can now be identified as a racist since the definition of people and the definition of color hasn't changed.

To be clear, you are cool in my books The_Yoda. You seem to have a good head on your shoulders and consider things through the right lenses. This post was not directed at you by any means. Please consider what I wrote and digest it for what it is worth. 



Around the Network
haxxiy said:
SanAndreasX said:


Right now, I'm nervously watching the Arizona results. Gallego is still ahead, but that race is too close for comfort and going to be razor-thin, like many of Arizona's other elections. They're not expecting a final outcome anytime soon, either, because counting in Arizona is very slow. Maricopa County, the largest county, has a two-page ballot which is further slowing down things. And even if she loses, Kari Lake will still screech about election fraud until 2026 when she will no doubt try again to go after the governorship.

The remaining vote is similar in composition to what's already in (according to the NYT needle before it went offline) so Gallego is very likely winning.

Also, I don't think Harris has a shot at the popular vote anymore. California swung too hard like everyone else. Even if the outstanding mail is like 65-35 the popular vote will probably end up around 77m - 75m in his favor.

This would make my prediction super close. I didn't post it knowing exactly how it would be received and not wanting to get swarmed.

I figured Americans would take Trumps main campaign question to heart of, 'do you prefer the last 4 years under Biden or the 4 prior under me'?

Which meant a 2016 EC, yet with Trump having such a good shot at the POP, I figured you'd get Hillary's margin give or take but with Trump on top.



LegitHyperbole said:
shavenferret said:

Trump isn't evil if you want to use a moral alignment kind of compass.  He is just more so amoral.  His ethics fit what suits him much more than most people.  And he seems to have done many shady things in recently.  So to hell with Trump.  I hope he burns.  

He has also been very lax wrt Russia and its aggression towards Ukraine.  Ryuu can explain it much better but he's also praised Putin and mocked zelensky.  I think that he's got some kind of agreement with Russia even though it will never be proven.  If Trump is going to officially be an isolationist towards Russia, whether he has agreements or not, the real question is what will happen with China in his final term.  Will China invade Taiwan?  This would be the ideal time.  They have a president who doesn't want to meddle with foreign affairs, much less against communist ones.  All trump cares about is the border.   

The problem is that Taiwan produces 90% of the world's semiconductors.  You can do the math and realize that they could start charging out of the ass if they have that monopoly over the rest of the world, and fvcking over everybody.   

This is very worrisome to me.  

Either they don't cause he's too unpredictable or they attempt it cause he'll show he won't interviene. Idk anymore but I'm almost positive China is going to attempy to take Taiwan no matter who's in office, tbh, they have promised as much and does it really matter when they do it at that point. Probably better for them to try sooner before they have expanded their military capability and naval capability, I'd feel safer now that ten years down the line where they're more efficient militarily. Just me though, another war in another region with new players is adding more to a hot ww3. It's difficult to quantify the right time or under the right leadership of each side for something like that cause there is too many factors at play. 

And I say attempt because someone on this site eased my fears, they said Taiwan is not just an Island in the middle of the South China Sea, it is a very capable island in the middle of the SCS well prepared to handle an invasion, trained and drilled for the event even from a China with a well outfitted Naval capability down the road and they only continue to up their preparedness. It's not a take it or not siutationam and after someone mentioned that, Ryuu I think, and I looked into it my fears went out the window cause it very likely isn't going to work out in China's favour, if they do get onto the Island and manage to hold part of it, it'll be very much the same deal as Ukraine and all the US or it's neighbours like Japan, Austrialia and the philipines etc would have to do is back it in the same way and avoid direct intervention. Also, I just want to add how unlikely it is that they'd get onto the island, It's doubtful the Americans would even be able to do it with their full might and would end up having to bomb the ever living shit out of the island first. 

Alas, I think Trump caught up to speed on the importance of Taiwan would make the correct call. He'll probably even set up infrastructure in the US to get out of this dead lock and look for rare earth materials elsewhere knowing what's at stake. And let's not forget he hates China.  

Hates china!!?¿?????? Hope so!



Chrkeller said:
Ryuu96 said:

Someone who took the test and misinterpreted the answer is what I think is the most likely scenario which happened here.

You've plucked 20 years out of your ass, you don't even know when these people passed their test or did what you said wasn't possible.

So the evidence I provided was...

1. UK drivers themselves who have also passed the test, some of which also did the thing which you claimed wasn't possible. If this was 1 UK driver then you could argue "well it's my word against his" but it was multiple UK drivers which puts you at a numbers disadvantage.

2. UK citizens I asked, including my own father.

3. UK based websites.

4. The British Government.

Your only rebuttal was to not actually provide any hard evidence but to say "You're wrong because you've not taken the test and I'm right because I'm taken the test" and that was when I (actually quite respectfully, pointed out the source of the UK Government countering what you was claiming) which you then threw a tantrum and got defensive, only after you disregarded the damn British Government did I then start getting sources from other UK Drivers, Reddit Threads, UK Companies, etc.

Btw, do I sense a hint of age-related insults to add to your condescension? First calling me immature and now childish, Lol. I feel we're two steps away from you saying "I'm 40 and you're 28 shut up you don't know anything about the world" But this is off-topic. If you can find the thread then maybe we can go through it all again in PM or some shit

I'm not wrong.  Don't know what to tell you.  Tell me, did your dad take the test more recently than 20 years?  Yeah, didn't think so. 

Not sure why I'm even wasting the time.  I'm 100% sure I'm a right.  Just like I was throughout this entire thread.

Im too lazy to go back to the original post, whats up with the test you guys are discussing? I took it 7 years ago and my wife took it 5 years ago so I may be able to provide an opinion on it.

All I can say is I failed first time not because I was too fast, but because I was too slow at 20mph on a 30mph rd. I also took the test in US and Brazil, for reference



shavenferret said:
LegitHyperbole said:

Either they don't cause he's too unpredictable or they attempt it cause he'll show he won't interviene. Idk anymore but I'm almost positive China is going to attempy to take Taiwan no matter who's in office, tbh, they have promised as much and does it really matter when they do it at that point. Probably better for them to try sooner before they have expanded their military capability and naval capability, I'd feel safer now that ten years down the line where they're more efficient militarily. Just me though, another war in another region with new players is adding more to a hot ww3. It's difficult to quantify the right time or under the right leadership of each side for something like that cause there is too many factors at play. 

And I say attempt because someone on this site eased my fears, they said Taiwan is not just an Island in the middle of the South China Sea, it is a very capable island in the middle of the SCS well prepared to handle an invasion, trained and drilled for the event even from a China with a well outfitted Naval capability down the road and they only continue to up their preparedness. It's not a take it or not siutationam and after someone mentioned that, Ryuu I think, and I looked into it my fears went out the window cause it very likely isn't going to work out in China's favour, if they do get onto the Island and manage to hold part of it, it'll be very much the same deal as Ukraine and all the US or it's neighbours like Japan, Austrialia and the philipines etc would have to do is back it in the same way and avoid direct intervention. Also, I just want to add how unlikely it is that they'd get onto the island, It's doubtful the Americans would even be able to do it with their full might and would end up having to bomb the ever living shit out of the island first. 

Alas, I think Trump caught up to speed on the importance of Taiwan would make the correct call. He'll probably even set up infrastructure in the US to get out of this dead lock and look for rare earth materials elsewhere knowing what's at stake. And let's not forget he hates China.  

Hates china!!?¿?????? Hope so!

Lol. Did you not see the first term. 😉 Chy-nah! Chy-nah this. Chy-nah that. He was the first president in daceds to step back from interlocking the US and Chinese economies as a deterrent from thucydides trap. Now it can be argued extensively if that is a good move or a bad move but he definitely does not like Chy-NAH. 



EnricoPallazzo said:
Chrkeller said:

I'm not wrong.  Don't know what to tell you.  Tell me, did your dad take the test more recently than 20 years?  Yeah, didn't think so. 

Not sure why I'm even wasting the time.  I'm 100% sure I'm a right.  Just like I was throughout this entire thread.

Im too lazy to go back to the original post, whats up with the test you guys are discussing? I took it 7 years ago and my wife took it 5 years ago so I may be able to provide an opinion on it.

All I can say is I failed first time not because I was too fast, but because I was too slow at 20mph on a 30mph rd. I also took the test in US and Brazil, for reference

It truly is a dumb argument between me and a few others.  Basically, on the theory test there is a question, "what do you do when you get a flat on the motorway?"  I answered, "change the tire," which was wrong.  The right answer is call "emergency services with the closest phone."  

I'm being told I am wrong and that isn't true.  Then it got into some stupid semantic war to prove I don't know what I am talking about for reasons.  Bear in mind I was questioned by folks who never stepped foot in the UK or haven't even taken the test, because of course they would know more.  Just like some in this thread knowing more about middle American than me, because some how living in middle America for 32 years means nothing. 

The UK driver's test is no joke, both the theory, hazard awareness and practical.  Way harder, and rightfully so, than US driver's test.

The irony being I think the whole emergency services to change tires on the motorway is actually a good thing and better than the US's perspective of "figure it out yourself."  So I even like their position, but some how I am still the enemy for reasons.  

Why a mod chose to bring up a completely off the topic discussion is a mystery to me.  

Last edited by Chrkeller - 6 days ago

i7-13700k

Vengeance 32 gb

RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC

Switch OLED