• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

American politics

I think Michelle Obama could get elected. She’s definitely more electable IMO than Kamala and Hilary. Just out of interest, did you think Kamala was a good candidate? I just completely disagree with the implication that she only lost because America is racist. Even her book title makes her come across like a victim. I’ve not read it, but from the reviews I’ve seen there’s barely an acknowledgment that she did anything wrong. For example, like going on SNL a few days before the election. Most of the people that watch that show be democrats, what’s the point of going on a show where you know the votes are in the bag already? Why not go on Joe Rogan? He’s got the biggest podcast audience in the world. From all accounts he did invite her on the show. To use a football analogy, it’s a bit like wanting to win the premier league but refusing to play an away game. Go on his show and try and win people over.

I do have perspective, I want the democrats to win elections as long as the republicans don’t believe in democracy or climate change. That doesn’t mean that I’m blind to the flaws that the democrats have. They’re seen as the party of no common sense. Was Hilary’s “deplorables” comment accurate? Probably, but by saying it you’re throwing votes away. Katie Porter had the same attitude in a recent interview, someone asked her what she needs to do to win over the people that voted for Trump and her attitude was why would I have to win those people over, I don’t need them. It’s not a great attitude to have IMO. That’s why I’d prefer a Gavin Newsom type to win as he seems more willing to engage with the other side.
Harris and Hillary were perfectly electable candidates when compared to Trump. I'm up to my oxters in work at the moment but I will come back on this at the weekend (remind me if I don't). I'll mostly be banging on about the wildly different standards dems and repubs are held to (Murc's Law).
 
Harris and Hillary were perfectly electable candidates when compared to Trump. I'm up to my oxters in work at the moment but I will come back on this at the weekend (remind me if I don't). I'll mostly be banging on about the wildly different standards dems and repubs are held to (Murc's Law).
Oxters, I've never known anyone outside of Scotland know what they are.
My Oxters are more electable than trump, that doesn't mean Hillary or Harris are good candidates.
 
Harris and Hillary were perfectly electable candidates when compared to Trump. I'm up to my oxters in work at the moment but I will come back on this at the weekend (remind me if I don't). I'll mostly be banging on about the wildly different standards dems and repubs are held to (Murc's Law).

Clearly not judging by the margins they lost by. I am by no means a fan of Trump, but given who he was running against I can see why people voted for him. I think Americans would elect the right woman candidate. They just didn’t like those two women who ran.
 
I can't see why anyone anywhere ever would vote for a corrupt, racist sex, abuser.

Because they think the people who run the other party are nuts. Not saying I agree with those people but if you’re selling popcorn and the other party are selling dog brick, shouldn’t you ask why more people bought dog brick? When you lose by such a wide margin you have to think it’s got to be at least partly your fault and not everyone else.
 
Clearly not judging by the margins they lost by. I am by no means a fan of Trump, but given who he was running against I can see why people voted for him. I think Americans would elect the right woman candidate. They just didn’t like those two women who ran.
Small margins. Hillary lost by about 40k votes in the end and won the popular vote by millions.
 
I just wish they would focus more on being effective rather than moral posturing. It says something that Americans feel Trump was a better candidate (twice) than the ones the democrats put forward.
I don't think the Democrats are effective at electioneering either, but they are good at governing. To say Biden was not an effective president just shows how well the right has captured the media landscape .

It says something about America that they voted for Trump twice, alright.
 
I don't think the Democrats are effective at electioneering either, but they are good at governing. To say Biden was not an effective president just shows how well the right has captured the media landscape .

It says something about America that they voted for Trump twice, alright.

I do agree that Biden was a good president, sadly his mental capacity was diminishing, even before he took office.

I mentioned Andrew Yang earlier and you call him a charlatan. What is it you don’t like about him? He’s one of the rare democrats I’ve seen voluntarily appear on Fox News whilst also winning some of them over. Goes back to what I was saying before, democrats don’t want to play an away game to use the football analogy.
 
I do agree that Biden was a good president, sadly his mental capacity was diminishing, even before he took office.

I mentioned Andrew Yang earlier and you call him a charlatan. What is it you don’t like about him? He’s one of the rare democrats I’ve seen voluntarily appear on Fox News whilst also winning some of them over. Goes back to what I was saying before, democrats don’t want to play an away game to use the football analogy.
I remember Yang well from the primaries leading up the 2020 election, and he was affable enough in those events even though he never received serious consideration. The UBI ideas were something that I am for, for example. However, most of his other ideas are bordering on nonsensical to the point that most political commentators consider him a bit of a joke. His futuristic techfix for everything outlook echoes views of other more nefarious libertarians like Theil and Musk. He is not the answer, no matter how many times he is on Fox.

But that does hit on a point of disagreement I have you, and that is that dems political time and capital should be spent on the brocasts and fox in an effort to try win back a few wavering voters. I don;t agree this is the way to do it. And this goes to the heart of why Democrats do not sweep the board at most elections when their record in government compared to the gop says they probably should.

Firstly, the right played the long game. They own the megaphone more or less in every media space now. Bar a few independent outlets and orgs everything the US hears is through this rightwing filter now. Talk radio, TV, social media, podcasts, and most of MSM are all under their dominion. They've comprehensively own the message delivery system and spin it to their advantage every time. You agree that Biden was a good president, and bar a few things, he was. But he got no credit for it and most voters had no clue how good his policies were. Dems are not good at taking credit for their good work. They believed people would see what they did and approve of it. Er, no they won't if they don;t know about it.

Biden did stay way too long in the race, and that was one reason Harris lost. But the most consequential reason was her loss of the progressive vote. She didn't lock in the progressive base and millions who previously voted for Biden stayed at home. These were engaged voters who were watching her utterances and didn't like what she was saying (or not saying) on topics they were passionate about. She spent too much time trying (and failing) to court wavering right-wing voters in an effort to peel them away from Trump. A fatal strategy in the end.
 
Last edited:
@Jurgen the German

What is your opinion on how the MSM are dealing with Trump's obvious mental decline versus how they covered Biden's gaffs, etc.?

I think Trump is very unique in how he is covered by the media. He is allowed to say and do things that any other politician in America wouldn’t be allowed to get away with it. So I’m with you on that. It’s not fair the standards (or lack) that he is held to.
 
I remember Yang well from the primaries leading up the 2020 election, and he was affable enough in those events even though he never received serious consideration. The UBI ideas were something that I am for, for example. However, most of his other ideas are bordering on nonsensical to the point that most political commentators consider him a bit of a joke. His futuristic techfix for everything outlook echoes views of other more nefarious libertarians like Theil and Musk. He is not the answer, no matter how many times he is on Fox.

But that does hit on a point of disagreement I have you, and that is that dems political time and capital should be spent on the brocasts and fox in an effort to try win back a few wavering voters. I don;t agree this is the way to do it. And this goes to the heart of why Democrats do not sweep the board at most elections when their record in government compared to the gop says they probably should.

Firstly, the right played the long game. They own the megaphone more or less in every media space now. Bar a few independent outlets and orgs everything the US hears is through this rightwing filter now. Talk radio, TV, social media, podcasts, and most of MSM are all under their dominion. They've comprehensively own the message delivery system and spin it to their advantage every time. You agree that Biden was a good president, and bar a few things, he was. But he got no credit for it and most voters had no clue how good his policies were. Dems are not good at taking credit for their good work. They believed people would see what they did and approve of it. Er, no they won't if they don;t know about it.

Biden did stay way too long in the race, and that was one reason Harris lost. But the most consequential reason was her loss of the progressive vote. She didn't lock in the progressive base and millions who previously voted for Biden stayed at home. These were engaged voters who were watching her utterances and didn't like what she was saying (or not saying) on topics they were passionate about. She spent too much time trying (and failing) to court wavering right-wing voters in an effort to peel them away from Trump. A fatal strategy in the end.

You see I disagree re the media. I think most US TV networks are fairly liberal, with the exception of Fox News. Just look at late night tv, you can tell without asking them which party the hosts vote for, it is pretty obvious.

I don’t see the point in preaching to voters that are already in the bag, like going on SNL. Was Kamala Harris really going to win over any undecided voters by appearing on that show? I like SNL but again it’s fairly obvious who the writers and cast vote for. Even just saying you’re republican these days leads to scorn, Sydney Sweeney was in the news because she was a registered republican, so what? If she was a registered democrat I doubt it would have made the news. The US election is usually decided by about 12 swing states, just appearing on liberal media doesn’t do much to win over undecided voters.

I would like to see Kamala come out and say what she would differently (if anything at all) but it appears to be everyone’s fault but hers. The title of her book is 107 days, because she “only had” 107 days. Our election cycle lasts about 6 weeks. Why the Americans need so much time to make up their minds I have no idea. They are in a perpetual state of election campaigning.
 
Back