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

Forums - Politics Discussion - 2024 US Presidential Election

JWeinCom said:

This is why I think the Republican party will collapse after Trump, hopefully, loses.

The maga people are like Trump. Psychotic and narcissistic. What they do they do primarily to feed their egos. It's why so many former Trump people write books about him and speak out against him. It's not because they were fooled and saw the light. They knew exactly who he was and rolled with it until it no longer served them.  Then they realized the best way to get attention was to speak out against Trump and get some adulation from that crowd.

The thing that's holding this together is Trump. We know that many people, like JD Vance, despise him privately. But he is the head of the cult, and they can't speak against him.

If Trump loses again, there's no way he runs again at 82 unless he runs as a third party. And there is no heir apparent. All the whack jobs are going to try to become the next Trump like a dystopian version of the Apprentice. I don't think there is any way a viable Republican party emerges. 

This is my hope, but I'm not so sure. I see three possibilities if Trump fails to win or steal the 2024 election.

1. The party cannot coalesce around a new leader, irreconcilably divided between the MAGA and old GOP wings, and eats itself.

2. The party finally abandons MAGA and goes back to at least an appearance of more respectability, getting behind a candidate like Nikki Haley.

3. The party manages to find a MAGA candidate who has the low brow charisma that Trump had and the competence that he did not. Many thought this could be DeSantis but that obviously didn't pan out. Unless someone surprises us out of the ether, the only person I could potentially see doing this is Tucker Carlson.

Obviously I'd prefer 1, tolerate 2, and loathe 3.



Around the Network
Ryuu96 said:

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Last edited by SanAndreasX - on 12 September 2024

TallSilhouette said:
JWeinCom said:

This is why I think the Republican party will collapse after Trump, hopefully, loses.

The maga people are like Trump. Psychotic and narcissistic. What they do they do primarily to feed their egos. It's why so many former Trump people write books about him and speak out against him. It's not because they were fooled and saw the light. They knew exactly who he was and rolled with it until it no longer served them.  Then they realized the best way to get attention was to speak out against Trump and get some adulation from that crowd.

The thing that's holding this together is Trump. We know that many people, like JD Vance, despise him privately. But he is the head of the cult, and they can't speak against him.

If Trump loses again, there's no way he runs again at 82 unless he runs as a third party. And there is no heir apparent. All the whack jobs are going to try to become the next Trump like a dystopian version of the Apprentice. I don't think there is any way a viable Republican party emerges. 

This is my hope, but I'm not so sure. I see three possibilities if Trump fails to win or steal the 2024 election.

1. The party cannot coalesce around a new leader, irreconcilably divided between the MAGA and old GOP wings, and eats itself.

2. The party finally abandons MAGA and goes back to at least an appearance of more respectability, getting behind a candidate like Nikki Haley.

3. The party manages to find a MAGA candidate who has the low brow charisma that Trump had and the competence that he did not. Many thought this could be DeSantis but that obviously didn't pan out. Unless someone surprises us out of the ether, the only person I could potentially see doing this is Tucker Carlson.

Obviously I'd prefer 1, tolerate 2, and loathe 3.

Nikki Haley needs to go away, too. She's just as bad as any of them. She has the principles of a wind sock. They need to look towards people like Mike DeWine or Charlie Baker. Nikki Haley still carries evangelical politics with her, and that's 90 percent of the Republican Party's problem right there. Until they start extirpating evangelical politics from the party's DNA, we'll still keep having the same problems.







Around the Network

A liar, a cheat, a devil, a whore. Just gonna leave this here. 

The politicians aren't your popstars folks. Fuck them. 



Ryuu96 said:
jason1637 said:

Honestly this is probably the most realistic outcome. Russia isnt giving back the land if were being honest.

Of course Russia isn't giving back the land they stolen willingly, that's why we need to help Ukraine to force them to give it back.

It's not the most realistic outcome, it's far too early to make predictions like this, Russia was in Afghanistan for 10 years before pulling out. Wars last a long time and things can change at the drop of a hat. Don't underestimate Ukraine as many have done multiple times in the past during this war. Again, wars last a long time, we need to do everything we can to give Ukraine a bigger advantage.

  • It was expected that Ukraine would fall in 3 days, the full-scale war has now been going on for over 2 years.
  • It was said that Ukraine wouldn't be able to take back land, Russia was forced to withdraw from Kyiv, Sumy.
  • It wasn't expected that Ukraine could take back Kherson and Kharkiv, they did.
  • It wasn't expected that Ukraine could do a uno-reverso on Russia and take land from Russia, they have.

As long as Ukraine continues to fight then we should continue to support them and Russia should not be rewarded with 20% of a country, what message does that send to every other country in the world that wants to do a land-grab? What message does that send to America's allies? What message does that send to Russia? And it's utter horseshit to say that Ukraine shouldn't be allowed to join NATO or EU afterwards, that's bullshit, Ukraine is an independent country that makes its own damn decisions.

This defeatist attitude is exactly what Russia hopes for because then they are rewarded for their genocidal campaign against Ukraine. I'd say though, it's one thing to believe this may be the eventual outcome, it's another thing to say out loud "Lets reward Russia for their slaughter with 20% of a country then force said country to be defenceless afterwards" while said country is still fighting for its life. Ukraine surrenders when it chooses, not when America chooses.

And Russia will just invade for the rest of Ukraine in the future when you ban them from joining any defensive alliances.

You're sending a pretty clear message to your allies that America won't do shit to defend them the moment things get even slightly uncomfortable for you. Bye bye Taiwan. Bye bye South Korea. Bye bye Europe. Let the dictators of the world have their way with you because we've decided to become isolationists.

How would you feel if Russia invaded America, your own state, slaughtered half your family, then some twats in Europe was telling America to surrender "for peace" and let Russia get away with the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Americans because we're upset about sending America financial aid? How would you feel when Europe tells America to give up 20% of its country to Russia? Then we kick you out of NATO.

We in Europe do not like surrendering to fucking Nazis.

Ukraine isnt Afghanistan. It means more to Russian history and how close it is makes it easy to annex. Look at Crimea Russia really stole that not too long ago. I 100% support Ukraine but this is war and if a deal were to happen I dont see anyway Russia isnt getting more land.

Were not going into World War 3 theres going to be limits to how much the West gets involved and continue to support Ukraine in this. And Russia has nuclear weapon as a last resort if the war goes on too long and they want to stop it. 

Taiwan and SK are different because we already have troops there ready to go and America has made it clear those are wars they are willing to get directly involved in. With Ukraine its been clear that the most we're going to do is supply and train and not do fighting ourselves.

Last edited by jason1637 - on 12 September 2024

jayson1637: "Ukraine isn't Afghanistan. It means more to Russian history and how close it is makes it easy to annex"

That is correct, but also, Russia is not the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union (a superpower back then) invaded Afghanistan in 1979, and fought there for 10 yrs. before giving up. (i.e they threw in the towel ! )

Putin's Russia has just a fraction of the power of the former Soviet Union.

Bottom line, Ukraine can win this war if the West continues to support it, especially by dropping weapons restrictions.



jason1637 said:
Ryuu96 said:

-Snip-

Ukraine isnt Afghanistan. It means more to Russian history and how close it is makes it easy to annex. Look at Crimea Russia really stole that not too long ago. I 100% support Ukraine but this is war and if a deal were to happen I dont see anyway Russia isnt getting more land.

Were not going into World War 3 theres going to be limits to how much the West gets involved and continue to support Ukraine in this. And Russia has nuclear weapon as a last resort if the war goes on too long and they want to stop it. 

Correct, Ukraine isn't Afghanistan...Ukraine is stronger than Afghanistan, better equipped than Afghanistan and more supported than Afghanistan and Russia isn't the Soviet Union anymore which was a stronger military force than Russia.

The key issues with Ukraine have been the West (largely America + Western Europe) dragging their feet in supporting Ukraine, constantly doubting Ukraine's ability, a stupid amount of bureaucracy where we've spent months debating on whether to send this, or that and constant stupid fear of "escalation" holding us back, that last one is largely coming from America and Germany.

Crimea was stolen with ease because the West did absolutely fuck all to back Ukraine up except slap Putin on the wrist. If Obama wasn't a useless fuck there then we may not be in the situation we are in today. The West looked the other way and Ukraine was powerless to do anything about it. Since 2014 Ukraine has been heavily militarising but they still needed modern equipment which they are now finally slowly getting.

Your geographical argument makes sense but it also makes sense to point out that Ukraine is also bordered by NATO countries, a quite powerful one in Poland, the ease in which Russia can invade Ukraine also applies to that it should be easy for NATO to pump military equipment into Ukraine. If Ukraine was isolated then yeah they'd probably be fucked like Georgia but they aren't.

Countless times throughout history have defenders came on the edge of losing to enemies, only for them to come close to winning, only for them to come close to losing, etc. North/South Korea War is a strong example of that. Even America for all its military might has lost wars, a country as powerful as America should make it irrelevant if they border a country or not and yet America has lost wars.

Russia also lost the first Chechnya War, albeit they got them in the second Chechnya War but Chechnya was one of the examples of a country isolated with no massive ally on its borders, a country far weaker than Ukraine and far less equipped and supported than Ukraine. It's easy to invade territory that you border, it's hard to keep hold of it long-term.

I think the reason why people are defaulting to this assumption that Ukraine will lose is quite frankly impatience, I think we've been through a period of relative peace for so long that people have completely forgotten how long and changing wars can be where things can change at the drop of a hat, it was only a year ago where Wagner was marching on Moscow, a thing nobody thought possible.

Putin is not going to use nukes and that's exactly the fear that holds America back from helping Ukraine to the fullest.

Taiwan and SK are different because we already have troops there ready to go and America has made it clear those are wars they are willing to get directly involved in. With Ukraine its been clear that the most we're going to do is supply and train and not do fighting ourselves.

That don't mean shit Tbh. When Russia invaded Ukraine every Western official fled the country, Lol. What makes you think American troops won't be ordered to flee Taiwan and South Korea? I'm sorry but the reason why Biden is being so cowardly lately is because he is terrified of Russia's nukes...Guess who else has nukes? China. So where is the logic to say that we can't defend Ukraine to the fullest because Russia has nukes but we can defend Taiwan/South Korea to the fullest despite China having nukes?

We (USA, UK) even had security agreements with Ukraine signed in the 90s. For America to abandon Ukraine (which is the suggestion of Trump and JD Vance) sends a horrible message to all allies of America that when the going gets tough, they abandon you. That as long as a country has nukes, it can do whatever the fuck it wants.

As for Biden, all a country needs to do is say "NUKES!" and Biden pisses his pants. Your allies are already doubting America's commitment, European allies have already been talking smack behind America's back for their stances during this war. The UK, America's most reliable ally in Europe, has been talking shit about America's strategy recently too, Ukraine has been expressing anger at the hypocrisy over America's support of Ukraine and their support of Israel.

Of course though, Trump and Vance would be far worse because no support at all is obviously worse than slow support, Trump and JD Vance want to turn America into an isolationist country, Trump has even heavily implied that he wouldn't defend Taiwan unless they pay America. You've got one side who turn into a puddle of piss when a country mentions nukes and the other side who will sell all their allies out.

America trying to force Ukraine into peace would be a disaster for America's international reputation, as simple as that. I say force as well because Ukraine likely won't just throw their hands up and go "alright, we surrender, America said so" when Ukraine has been technically fighting Russia for 10 years now, when Ukraine was willing to fight Russia even before the West actually got off their asses and backed them.

Anyway, I make no definite statement of how this war will end, it could end with Ukraine losing territory, it could end with Ukraine getting it back, I refuse to make a definitive statement because I believe this war has years to go and many things can change before that (internal collapse, battlefield advancements, tactical fuck ups, etc). I still believe Ukraine can win if given the right support, I believe Ukraine can lose if not given the right support. I believe Ukraine having to surrender territory will be a disaster for the world and send a horrible message to dictators across the globe.

Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 13 September 2024

BFR said:

Bottom line, Ukraine can win this war if the West continues to support it, especially by dropping weapons restrictions.

Yeah. The West is too used to peace that it's so easy to scare them now, we spent months debating how escalatory it would be to send tanks, we spent months debating how escalatory it would be to send long-range missiles, we spent months debating how escalatory it would be to send jets, we spent months debating how escalatory it would be to allow Ukraine to strike Russian territory now we've spent months debating how escalatory it would be to allow Ukraine to strike Russia with long-range missiles. In all this time we've spent debating, Ukraine has suffered and then we're in a scenario where we can't train Ukraine with as much care as we do our own troops, we have to turn 1-2 year training courses into 3 month training courses because Ukraine doesn't have the time...Because we wasted time listening to Russia's threat number 50,000.

China's Final Warning, Russia's Red-Lines. They have the same thing in common, they were never acted on, how many times has Russia threatened to nuke Europe now? How many times have they warned us about "red-lines" and said they're at war with us? NATO doesn't even shoot down fucking Russian missiles and drones entering their own damn airspace out of fear of escalation, it's our damn airspace that's being violated! Instead we follow the drones and missiles out of our countries so they can hit Ukrainian schools and hospitals. Putin didn't even do shit when Wagner marched on Moscow, he fled to St Petersburg for fuck sake. This is a man who doesn't want to die. Even Lukashenko, Putin's biggest ally, has said that Russia would never use nukes because it wouldn't benefit them, Lukashenko can see it but NATO can't.

How bad of a look is it if recent developments are true? That America is going to allow Ukraine to use Storm Shadow on Russia but won't allow Ukraine to use ATACMS on Russia...Storm Shadow, a missile that America didn't even have a hand in creating, a missile entirely made by the UK and France. That America has been blocking us from giving permission to Ukraine to use it on Russia. Gee, thanks for your permission America that we can finally choose what we do with our own missiles. But then America is saying no to ATACMS? Which has roughly the same range as Storm Shadow? That's a horrible look, it not only makes America look like a coward, it will also make them look stupid when Russia doesn't do anything to UK in response. It makes them look like they've just thrown the UK, America's closest ally, to the Russian wolves, Lmao.

But I want to make clear I'm still grateful for America's support, without it, Ukraine would have likely lost, I'm just very frustrated over the past few months of having to listen to even more escalation management after over 2 years of escalation management, I just wish we could do better because we are not doing everything we can for Ukraine. Tbh though, I think we should take this discussion elsewhere.