Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..psychojoe said..decrepit said..
For what It's worth, I have a good feeling about Kamala We could just see the World get more sane
I probably should have left this alone but it's worth nothing because you're old. Old people shouldn't vote on matters that affect the future... because it's not their future.
T.I.C. in case it wasn't obvious.
Well, that would guarantee a Green/ Left win at every election
Really?!
I'm probably the youngest guy on this forum, also something of an environmentalist (to a point where I'll attend rallies against fracking and that sort of thing) and I would never vote Green; their policies are retarded.
Select to expand quotefangman said..D3 said..
Will be interesting to see what policy platforms they will champion now the DNC is over, I will admit that I've been underwhelmed by the amount of policy put forward by both, but particularly the Dems.
Small target strategy perhaps?
More like, "The Vibe".
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..Mr Milk said..psychojoe said..decrepit said..
For what It's worth, I have a good feeling about Kamala We could just see the World get more sane
I probably should have left this alone but it's worth nothing because you're old. Old people shouldn't vote on matters that affect the future... because it's not their future.
T.I.C. in case it wasn't obvious.
Well, that would guarantee a Green/ Left win at every election
Really?!
I'm probably the youngest guy on this forum, also something of an environmentalist (to a point where I'll attend rallies against fracking and that sort of thing) and I would never vote Green; their policies are retarded.
Maybe, but you have only one vote. Polls that I see reported find that youngsters like Greens
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..psychojoe said..Mr Milk said..psychojoe said..decrepit said..
For what It's worth, I have a good feeling about Kamala We could just see the World get more sane
I probably should have left this alone but it's worth nothing because you're old. Old people shouldn't vote on matters that affect the future... because it's not their future.
T.I.C. in case it wasn't obvious.
Well, that would guarantee a Green/ Left win at every election
Really?!
I'm probably the youngest guy on this forum, also something of an environmentalist (to a point where I'll attend rallies against fracking and that sort of thing) and I would never vote Green; their policies are retarded.
Maybe, but you have only one vote. Polls that I see reported find that youngsters like Greens
Well there you have it. Young people and anyone with personalised plates shouldn't get to vote
Select to expand quoteRango said..fangman said..D3 said..
Will be interesting to see what policy platforms they will champion now the DNC is over, I will admit that I've been underwhelmed by the amount of policy put forward by both, but particularly the Dems.
Small target strategy perhaps?
More like, "The Vibe".
At least the Republicans put all their policies and plans down in writing for everyone to read.
I'm sure that's going to work out well for them
I was reading a fact check on Clinton's comment that, Democrats had created 50 million jobs since the end of the cold war, while republicans created 1 million.
But some argued that Clinton should have included Reagan and Carter administrations. That would make it 60 to 17million in favour of Democrats.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
I was reading fact checking on Clinton l's comment that Democrats had created 50 million jobs since the end of the cold war, republicans created 1 million.
But some argued that Clinton should have included Reagan and Carter administrations. That would make it 60:17 in favour of Democrats.
How many wars started between Clinton & Obama?
Those numbers are interesting
Ahhh. Maybe you missed the comment from someone else?
There was a commenter who implied that the Democratic party are attacking RFK Antivaxxer just because he has officially endorsed Trump.
My response to that was: So?
Also same commenter suggested that if you're looking back at the historical effects of policies by the Democratic party (like job creation), they suggested that we look at how many wars Clinton and Obama had started.
If you want to see what impact a Harris administration will have on the USA and the rest of the world, just look back over the past 3 years.
Then compare that to what Trump delivered on compared to what he promised.
Select to expand quotehitch_hiker said..remery said..
I was reading fact checking on Clinton l's comment that Democrats had created 50 million jobs since the end of the cold war, republicans created 1 million.
But some argued that Clinton should have included Reagan and Carter administrations. That would make it 60:17 in favour of Democrats.
How many wars started between Clinton & Obama?
Those numbers are interesting
Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)Lebanon (1982-1984): Reagan deployed U.S. Marines to Lebanon as part of a multinational force during the Lebanese Civil War.Grenada Invasion (1983): Reagan ordered the invasion of Grenada to overthrow its Marxist government.Libya Bombing (1986): Reagan authorized airstrikes against Libya in response to the bombing of a Berlin nightclub frequented by U.S. servicemen.
George H. W. Bush (1989-1993)Panama Invasion (1989): Bush ordered the invasion of Panama to overthrow General Manuel Noriega.Gulf War (1990-1991): Bush led a coalition to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait in Operation Desert Storm.
Bill Clinton (1993-2001)Somalia (1993): Continued U.S. involvement in Somalia, including the Battle of Mogadishu, also known as "Black Hawk Down."Bosnia and Herzegovina (1995): Clinton led NATO intervention in the Bosnian War, including airstrikes against Bosnian Serb forces.Kosovo War (1999): Clinton authorized a NATO bombing campaign against Yugoslavia during the Kosovo conflict.
George W. Bush (2001-2009)Afghanistan Invasion (2001): In response to the September 11 attacks, Bush ordered the invasion of Afghanistan to dismantle al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban from power.Iraq War (2003-2011): Bush launched the invasion of Iraq based on claims that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.
Barack Obama (2009-2017)Libya Intervention (2011): Obama authorized NATO intervention in Libya, which led to the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi.Syrian Civil War: U.S. involvement in the Syrian Civil War, including support for rebel groups and airstrikes against ISIS.Operation Neptune Spear (2011): The operation that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.
Donald Trump (2017-2021)Syria (2017): Trump ordered missile strikes against Syrian government targets in response to a chemical weapons attack.Assassination of Qasem Soleimani (2020): Trump authorized a drone strike that killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, escalating tensions with Iran.
Joe Biden (2021-Present)Afghanistan Withdrawal (2021): Although not a war initiation, Biden oversaw the controversial U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, leading to the rapid takeover by the Taliban.Continuation of Anti-ISIS Operations:
I may have missed some, but it seems most of the outright invasions were undertaken by Republicans Presidents. Is that the interesting part?
Select to expand quoteD3 said..
Ahhh. Maybe you missed the comment from someone else?
There was a commenter who implied that the Democratic party are attacking RFK Antivaxxer just because he has officially endorsed Trump.
My response to that was: So?
Also same commenter suggested that if you're looking back at the historical effects of policies by the Democratic party (like job creation), they suggested that we look at how many wars Clinton and Obama had started.
If you want to see what impact a Harris administration will have on the USA and the rest of the world, just look back over the past 3 years.
Then compare that to what Trump delivered on compared to what he promised.
I suppose if the fact check on jobs goes back to Carter, the tangential link to wars should include wars started by both Bushes plus Reagan.
Ahh, perhaps if you use the quote button when replying to another's post your intent becomes clear to all. 
From my perspective the quantity of US ordnance which has been deployed globally over the past century, the blood spilled, the destruction wrought and the misery caused is sufficient evidence that the political system as a whole is responsible. Blue AND red, share responsibility.
which begs the question, what would the World be like now if the US hadn't intervened.
I'm only interested in the motivations Were they selfish? or selfless? Usually hear Americans chanting USA USA USA, not so much WORLD PEACE WORLD PEACE WORLD PEACE.
I remember Obama saying he wouldn't enter the US into any more wars unless he could see gains for America. I think I answered my own question.
Just a thought bubble: how many countries say, post The Korean War, are better off economically than their neighbours after being invaded by the US, or manipulated by the CIA? I do realise this is an over simplistic question that does not take into account the greater geopolitical forces at the time.
This is just a quick list from a rough internet search. What would the world look like now if these hadn't occurred? As D3 said, so may what ifs. All the same as per Japie's comment, I wonder which administrations look back on their involvement with a sense of 'job well done'?
Direct invasions: Vietnam War (1965-1973):Dominican Republic (1965):.Cambodia (1970):.Laos (1964-1973):Grenada (1983):.Panama (1989):.Gulf War (1991):.Somalia (1992-1994):.Haiti (1994):Afghanistan (2001-Present):Iraq (2003-2011):Libya (2011):
Major CIA Operations: Iran (1953):.Guatemala (1954):.Cuba (1961):Chile (1973):Congo (1960-1965): .Indonesia (1965-1966): Brazil (1964):Nicaragua (1980s):El Salvador (1980s):.Afghanistan (1980s):Libya (2011):Venezuela (2002):
War is a Racket by Major General Smedley Butler, written in 1935, is as relevant today or even more so than then.
"General Butler's screed crosses all ideological boundaries.Originally printed in 1935, War Is a Racket is General
Smedley Butler's frank speech describing his role as a soldier as nothing more than serving as a puppet for big-business interests. The introduction discusses why General Butler went against the corporate war machine and how he exposed a fascist coup d'etat plot against President Franklin Roosevelt. Widely appreciated and referenced by left- and right-wingers alike, this is an extraordinary argument against war - more relevant now than ever."
Select to expand quoteD3 said..
...... I will admit that I've been underwhelmed by the amount of policy put forward by both, but particularly the Dems.
Maybe I missed something but I am not sure what great things the current Biden/Harris presidency acheived. What would be Biden's enduring presidential legacy. Obama-care style legacy.
Seems to me the biggest successes of the current presidency are recinding and/or replacing previous decisions they made. Be it on southern border control, electric vehicle targets, Biden not being, then being, then not being the party president candidate. The backflips have been far more successful than the initial position.
Can't see the current US foreign policies (including in Ukraine or Gaza) being regarded as a delivering success.
Political backflips might be harder than policy, so maybe they should get credit for being willing to backflip and doing it with relative success ?
Don't get me wrong, I can't see anything particularly legacy-style terrible they have done. Maybe the Gaza situation may eventually get to that, only time will reveal. But then again I never saw anything Trump did that was legacy-style terrible.
Interesting that the best the democrats now got as a reason to not vote for Trump is that he is 'a bit weird'. Seems they even backflipped on this from the russian collusion, mutinous insurection, random legal shannigans, his wife is going to leave him tomorrow, his kids are criminals etc. etc.
Select to expand quotefangman said..
Just a thought bubble:
Just another bubble :
Does anyone reckon Harris woud have won the Democrat Party candidacy if Biden had not stood and they had gone through with the usual process (primaries or whatever they call them).
I seem to recall she got zero votes last time she stood. Biden only just got to 50%. Wasn't there Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Buttigerg (however it is spelt), couple others maybe all on the ticket who got some reasonable amount of votes?
What if Buttigerg or Elizabeth Warren had stood against Harris as candidate in the Primaries ? Do you reckon Harris would have been the shoe-in she is now ?
Do first term pesidents always chose somebody who they belive can't challenge them in the next election ? And second term presidents always chose somebody they believe can win the next election ?
I guess we will never know.
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..D3 said..
...... I will admit that I've been underwhelmed by the amount of policy put forward by both, but particularly the Dems.
Maybe I missed something but I am not sure what great things the current Biden/Harris presidency acheived. What would be Biden's enduring presidential legacy. Obama-care style legacy.
Seems to me the biggest successes of the current presidency are recinding and/or replacing previous decisions they made. Be it on southern border control, electric vehicle targets, Biden not being, then being, then not being the party president candidate. The backflips have been far more successful than the initial position.
Can't see the current US foreign policies (including in Ukraine or Gaza) being regarded as a delivering success.
Political backflips might be harder than policy, so maybe they should get credit for being willing to backflip and doing it with relative success ?
Don't get me wrong, I can't see anything particularly legacy-style terrible they have done. Maybe the Gaza situation may eventually get to that, only time will reveal. But then again I never saw anything Trump did that was legacy-style terrible.
Interesting that the best the democrats now got as a reason to not vote for Trump is that he is 'a bit weird'. Seems they even backflipped on this from the russian collusion, mutinous insurection, random legal shannigans, his wife is going to leave him tomorrow, his kids are criminals etc. etc.
Biden may not be remembered for having achieved monumental or outstanding wins and legacy to be remembered through the ages, but according to some of the metrics that seem important to Trump, he has performed better than Trump did.
This is only one article, not a full on review.
www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2024-opinion-biden-accomplishment-data/
But some Biden and Harris wins since Trumps first term:
- Reductions in violent crimes
- Millions more people having access to affordable healthcare
- Low unemployment ( like back in the 60s)
- Increase in wages
- Cost of living going down
-Family wealth increasing
- Reducing the inequality gap
Not saying that these are stupendous achievements, but they indicate some of the things Biden and Harris have done better than Trump.
And when it comes to Immigration, I just think it's hilarious that Trumps Republicans are the ones refusing to support any legislation changes to fix their broken system.
All to support Trump, because it makes the current administration look bad.
Yet there is more to running a country, not just winning votes, so it will be interesting to see what policies Harris will put forward across the board ( not just the ones that make good sound bites)
Select to expand quoteD3 said..Carantoc said..D3 said..
...... I will admit that I've been underwhelmed by the amount of policy put forward by both, but particularly the Dems.
Maybe I missed something but I am not sure what great things the current Biden/Harris presidency acheived. What would be Biden's enduring presidential legacy. Obama-care style legacy.
Seems to me the biggest successes of the current presidency are recinding and/or replacing previous decisions they made. Be it on southern border control, electric vehicle targets, Biden not being, then being, then not being the party president candidate. The backflips have been far more successful than the initial position.
Can't see the current US foreign policies (including in Ukraine or Gaza) being regarded as a delivering success.
Political backflips might be harder than policy, so maybe they should get credit for being willing to backflip and doing it with relative success ?
Don't get me wrong, I can't see anything particularly legacy-style terrible they have done. Maybe the Gaza situation may eventually get to that, only time will reveal. But then again I never saw anything Trump did that was legacy-style terrible.
Interesting that the best the democrats now got as a reason to not vote for Trump is that he is 'a bit weird'. Seems they even backflipped on this from the russian collusion, mutinous insurection, random legal shannigans, his wife is going to leave him tomorrow, his kids are criminals etc. etc.
Biden may not be remembered for having achieved monumental or outstanding wins and legacy to be remembered through the ages, but according to some of the metrics that seem important to Trump, he has performed better than Trump did.
This is only one article, not a full on review.
www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2024-opinion-biden-accomplishment-data/
But some Biden and Harris wins since Trumps first term:
- Reductions in violent crimes
- Millions more people having access to affordable healthcare
- Low unemployment ( like back in the 60s)
- Increase in wages
- Cost of living going down
-Family wealth increasing
- Reducing the inequality gap
Not saying that these are stupendous achievements, but they indicate some of the things Biden and Harris have done better than Trump.
And when it comes to Immigration, I just think it's hilarious that Trumps Republicans are the ones refusing to support any legislation changes to fix their broken system.
All to support Trump, because it makes the current administration look bad.
Yet there is more to running a country, not just winning votes, so it will be interesting to see what policies Harris will put forward across the board ( not just the ones that make good sound bites)
