Politics

[wesheltonj]

Fk the UN.....needs getting rid of ASAP

Folks in the US have been saying that for years. It just another wealth transfer from the 1st world to swiss banks of third world leaders.

 

[Wheels]

UN employees were involved in the Hamas raid on Israel. Hezbollah facilities have been found under or next to UN locations in Lebanon. UN funded NGO's are involved in moving illegals into America. No telling what else they are doing.

 

[Wheels]

It is interesting how far the main stream media has fallen in the court of public opinion. It is also amazing how fast social media has replaced them. 16 hours after the Rogan/Trump podcast there has been 15 million views on You tube alone. This doesn't include the other outlets that show Rogan's podcast.

 

[Tanks]

Looks like Israel has started it’s retaliation strikes against Iran.

The problem I have with this is that it will not be a deterrent as they are just striking against military targets like they did after the Iranian attacks in April.

Biden is on record about telling Israel, rather forcefully, to avoid oil infrastructure and nuclear facilities. I can understand not striking nuclear facilities as they are underground and might result in heavy damage to civilians. However, his main reasoning for not striking oil facilities is oil prices going up before the election.

At this point it is just a Kabuki theatre, and I doubt it will deter any further action from Iran.

 

[Tanks]

It is interesting how far the main stream media has fallen in the court of public opinion. It is also amazing how fast social media has replaced them. 16 hours after the Rogan/Trump podcast there has been 15 million views on You tube alone. This doesn't include the other outlets that show Rogan's podcast.

Harris campaign has stated that they will not go on Rogan show due to "scheduling" conflicts. Heck, Harris can't pull it together in a 15-minute interview in a friendly venue. Doubt she could handle one that would last an hour or two, especially live.

 

[cash_tx]

On a related note, interesting comment from Zeihan on that topic (albeit more a bit dated):

 

[Wheels]

This post from eight years ago today never gets old.

https://twitter.com/x/status/791263939015376902

 

[WellThatsNotRight]

Forty-four times since 1861 and with inauguration of the first republican president. Twenty-three times republican control and twenty-one democrat. There have been 82 congresses since 1861, so a party has actually controlled the two houses of congress and the presidency more than half the time.

I guess the point I’m trying to make is that it’s not necessarily a good thing for one party (either party) to get everything they want. While it may give those in the power party the warm fuzzies to feel like they’re doing God’s work by jamming their own policy down the American throat, at the end of the day that’s not going to serve about half the country. Both parties have some pretty terrible worst impulses and it will always serve the country better if they both have to struggle to get what they want.

 

[WellThatsNotRight]

I honestly don't agree with much of what you have asserted about a two-party political system in this country... Historically, there have always been 3rd parties, and sometimes 4th, and 5th, as in the 1912 election of Wilson's first term... Granted, for much of our political history, 3rd parties have simply not carried enough membership to get their candidate elected, but they have greatly influenced elections by diversifying the electorate...Furthermore, they have succeeded in that they have offered representation for their members who were not aligned with the platforms of the two major parties...

However, in modern politics, it's less likely now than ever that we will see any significant power come from a 3rd party to get a POTUS elected. Very simply, a party's power is determined by the dollar, and the ability to fund raise. For the members, a political party is an investment just like a stock or bond with the desired political outcome being the dividend...

The founders designed our 3-branch system expecting gridlock. This was to be the check and balance on any radical change or one-party dominance... As far as any one party gaining control over the WH and both houses, it has only occurred 6 times in our history... It usually occurs when the other side as failed miserably on collective policy and sweeping change is warranted by the electorate... The "compromise" you mention no longer exists when one party becomes too radicalized as is currently the case with the democrats...

One-party control being a good or bad is in the eye of the beholder... In this upcoming election, I view it to be a very good, and necessary thing especially when the country faces multiple crises and is on the breaking point as we are... For as much as the phrase has been overused in the last 2 political cycles, democracy actually is at stake... Ironically, it's the democrats that are seeking to destroy it, and not the other way around...

So you are saying that you agree that the now-times we are experiencing are within a two party system? Heard.

 

[fourfive8]

I see that the Dem deep state hack, NASA administrator Nelson, is wanting to investigate Elon Musk. Except for trying to explain away the ongoing Boeing Starliner fiasco and the continuing SLS/Orion cluster flop, last time I saw Grinin’ Bill Nelson he was at some gala event whooping it up with Brandon and Hunter.

 

[Tanks]

I see that the Dem deep state hack, NASA administrator Nelson, is wanting to investigate Elon Musk. Except for trying to explain away the ongoing Boeing Starliner fiasco and the continuing SLS/Orion cluster flop, last time I saw Grinin’ Bill Nelson he was at some gala event whooping it up with Brandon and Hunter.

He needs to take a number. He is late to the party of people wanting Musk to be investigated for a number of reasons.

 

[cwpayton]

I was impressed with him taking a narcissistic question and turn it into a positive answer with a personal story. Too bad the media and Democrats have vilified him so much that quite a number of people never gave him a chance.

Vance is truly a pleasantly uplifting real man, and will probably be president within 6 months of taking office with trump ,as the regime will not give up untill they take him down. the whole thing ( anti maga ,anti trumpism, is beganing to get stale as left over bread. get on board or get out.

 

[cwpayton]

I can imagine his very intelligent wife rolling her eyes at the question. And Vance did indeed handle the childish nonsense perfectly. It must be frustrating to deal with both a hostile press and that sort of cluelessness.

I believe it is correct to say that a meaningful portion of the party has left me and republicans like me. What the "I love Trump no matter what he says or does because I uniquely know what he will really do" crowd refuses to acknowledge is that a critic of Trump can also be totally opposed to the goals of the democrat party. I will not vote for Harris, and will vote republican down ticket. I believe a Republican Senate is the key goal in this election.

There is nothing more likely to get me to cast a vote for Trump than both the sanctimony of so many democrats - a popular sign in Austin at the moment is "Harris Waltz - of Course" - or this dangerous and desperate effort to label him Hitler or a Fascist.



For Prager, I think that is pretty accurate commentary with respect to many of the Republicans who oppose Trump - though he does ignore proportion. After all, Hillary supporters did not storm the capital.

However, he does not describe me. I will not vote for Kamala Harris and will not support the democrat party's Sociowokism doctrine. But, that does not mean that I have to believe that Trump is necessarily a better alternative.

Again, the critical path for me is a republican senate. It will be capable of thwarting the more nonsensical legislative proposals and appointments of a Harris administration, or limit the potential economic or international relations damage of a Trump administration.

Is it just me, or does Prager sound like he is struggling with chronic constipation?

yea you can only vote for 1 senator per election if I remember my civics correctly hardly enough to out do trumps damage to economics, as you suggest , seems to me the economy was rolling like a freight train before covid was introduced, via China and Seattle. Inflation was a non issue, Americans were working, Border was a smaller issue by far, China was calmer, Russia was not in Ukraine, Israel was not at war, the shameful disaster of Afghanistan withdrawal would not have happened. ISIS WAS KNOCKED DOWN into a rat hole, now under joe we may have to go back into Afghan someday as its the largest terrorists training camp in the world ,with American military equipment. not a bad international relations record . Do I like trump? not really, but I'm Maga all the way because we aren't electing a favorite ,,a favorite son or most popular personality, we are electing a leader who will lead for our greater good,. USA, USA, USA, SOUND FAMILAR.

 

[cwpayton]

For a number of reasons the middle, centrist, voters are not represented. Like it or not it’s a two party system, and the most extreme of each party have undue influence over the party well after primaries and well into the supposed governing portion of the process.

Moderates are just not important to either party because elections are determined on the fringe. The majority of Americans are aligned enough with one tribe or the other that their vote is predetermined even when they don’t like the candidate or 49% of the party policy.

Tribal allegiance and hyper partisan politics have normalized scorched earth, all-or-nothing governance (thanks Newt). This tactic will always leave a significant portion of the electorate feeling unrepresented and pretty chapped about it.

There is little chance in this cycle, but do any of you believe that it is objectively good when the House, Senate, and presidency are all the same party? Is it good for the country when either party has carte blanche to act on their every impulse or is it better for there to be push-and-pull and some measure of compromise?

no No NO never compromise with the devil or a rattle snake, Take their head off,, eh I mean EH I MEAN we should ah that thing ah stop them.

 

[sgt_zim]

I guess the point I’m trying to make is that it’s not necessarily a good thing for one party (either party) to get everything they want. While it may give those in the power party the warm fuzzies to feel like they’re doing God’s work by jamming their own policy down the American throat, at the end of the day that’s not going to serve about half the country. Both parties have some pretty terrible worst impulses and it will always serve the country better if they both have to struggle to get what they want.

View attachment 642812

In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that prospers.

If I tell you that you must drink a glass of cyanide, and we compromise and you only drink a half glass, you still lose. That's where we are, and the DNC is the glass of cyanide.

 

[Flipper Dude]

no No NO never compromise with the devil or a rattle snake, Take their head off,, eh I mean EH I MEAN we should ah that thing ah stop them.

You were right to begin with. Never compromise with a devil or rattlesnake. Take their head off.

 

[WellThatsNotRight]

In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that prospers.

If I tell you that you must drink a glass of cyanide, and we compromise and you only drink a half glass, you still lose. That's where we are, and the DNC is the glass of cyanide.

That’s just it though, isn’t it? When did we start referring to the opposition as the enemy and referring to their point of view as evil. While there are surely bad actors in both parties the beliefs, no matter how ill informed or misguided, are shared by roughly half the population.

Maybe someone believes that my wife should not be allowed to have a late term abortion to avoid sepsis from a dead baby in her womb. I’m sure that this person has a very good reason to believe that they have some business in my wife’s lady business. Some deeply held belief that they have some moral obligation to place legal restrictions on her body. I’m not gonna call this nitwit “evil”. They have simply overstepped their boundaries and lost their damn mind. They aren’t evil, they’re just f*cking stupid.

 

[WellThatsNotRight]

You were right to begin with. Never compromise with a devil or rattlesnake. Take their head off.

Sounding very jihadi there guy. Secret service is overtaxed right now but I’m sure they could carve out some time for you.

 

[Flipper Dude]

Sounding very jihadi there guy. Secret service is overtaxed right now but I’m sure they could carve out some time for you.

I’m not hard to find.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

That’s just it though, isn’t it? When did we start referring to the opposition as the enemy and referring to their point of view as evil. While there are surely bad actors in both parties the beliefs, no matter how ill informed or misguided, are shared by roughly half the population.

Maybe someone believes that my wife should not be allowed to have a late term abortion to avoid sepsis from a dead baby in her womb. I’m sure that this person has a very good reason to believe that they have some business in my wife’s lady business. Some deeply held belief that they have some moral obligation to place legal restrictions on her body. I’m not gonna call this nitwit “evil”. They have simply overstepped their boundaries and lost their damn mind. They aren’t evil, they’re just f*cking stupid.

Well murdering babies is evil so if the shoe fits… Obviously removing a baby that’s already deceased is quite another matter.