US Politics Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Vic said:
Oh dear. Is one cross?

www.telegraph.co.uk

Trump demands refund on funds spent campaigning against Biden

Former US leader says Republicans should be ‘reimbursed for fraud’ as millions of dollars spent on ads aimed at the president go to waste
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
Click to expand...

So he seems to be claiming that he's been swizzled into spending his money? So he's the elderly man with declining cognitive abilities who has been the victim of the double glazing salesmen that are the Democratic Party?

Interesting attack line for a guy who is as bigley brained and virile as trump.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
The entire election boils down to a few key swing states. Biden was well down in most of those.

When someone is down by percentages that are outside the margin of error, and there were multiple states like that, even the potential for the holes in the Swiss cheese to line up exactly right gets narrower and narrower.

I think it’s safe to say that the race has gone from slim chance before the debate to no chance after the debate to no fucking chance in Hell after the assassination attempt & RNC to Trump is running scared after Biden dropped out and Harris has emerged as the front runner!

I was a big supporter of hers before the Dem debates 4 yrs ago. I changed my tune when I saw and heard the rest of the field, because I thought others were stronger and better prepared for the role. Today, though, with 4 yrs of VP under her belt, I think she ticks all, or most of, the boxes needed to bury Trump IF she can pick a VP nominee who helps win her key swing states. Kelly of AZ looks like the one to me.
Click to expand...

gordondaviesmoustache said:
It’s a trite point, but that debate changed everything. If you’re going to put up an Octogenarian, then make fucking sure he’s going to deliver when it really matters. The room for error was much less for Biden than it would have been for a younger person. Absolutely stands to reason.
Click to expand...
I think that when the dust settles the dems will have to ask themselves how they got in the position of putting Biden up to that debate.

The only positive was that it happened so early and with time to make a change. I guess it underlines why you have the primary process.

In the postmortem it will go back to when Biden was selected. He wasn't an outlier in terms of age at a then chirpy 77. His opposition included:

Sanders 79
Bloomberg 78
Warren 71

Way down the list was Mike Gravel at 90! He died June 2021 so would have lasted 6 months.

So at the time age was not a big factor. If they have any sense they will put a 70yo age limit on a first term run, 75 on a second. Even then sub 60 should be preferable.
 
Gareth Barry Conlon said:
I think that when the dust settles the dems will have to ask themselves how they got in the position of putting Biden up to that debate.

The only positive was that it happened so early and with time to make a change. I guess it underlines why you have the primary process.

In the postmortem it will go back to when Biden was selected. He wasn't an outlier in terms of age at a then chirpy 77. His opposition included:

Sanders 79
Bloomberg 78
Warren 71

Way down the list was Mike Gravel at 90! He died June 2021 so would have lasted 6 months.

So at the time age was not a big factor. If they have any sense they will put a 70yo age limit on a first term run, 75 on a second. Even then sub 60 should be preferable.
Click to expand...
Kamala will be 60 in October.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
It’s a trite point, but that debate changed everything. If you’re going to put up an Octogenarian, then make fucking sure he’s going to deliver when it really matters. The room for error was much less for Biden than it would have been for a younger person. Absolutely stands to reason.
Click to expand...

It's incredibly lucky that they agreed to the earliest presidential debate in history because if that had happened in September...
 
laserblue said:
Then try this for size. It's a real photo not photoshopped or AI.

View attachment 126138
Click to expand...
Again, you've missed the point of my claim. Why am I not surprised.

Epstein taking pictures with celebrities isn't the point. It's about how a fake Photoshop is a despicable act by despicable people when the person who is fake photoshopped is a Democrat but just a funny fake when the person has an R next to their name.

A response from you that would disprove my point would be one where 'left brain' people here called a left fake:

"Despicable! And something only a horrible human would do."

You'd never find such. What you'd find are post like yours that misses the point. Whether this is inadvertent or on purpose I don't know.
 
Johnny Mars Bar said:
She looks and acts a lot younger than that.

I thought she was early 50s, maybe even late 40s
Click to expand...
She has made a surprisingly (to me anyway) good start. Two strong speeches delivered lightly with absolutely no hate, just here’s my background and this is what I’m going to do. She has enough endorsements from delegates to the Democratic Convention to win the nomination. Attention now turns to who will be the Veep candidate.
 
Dax777 said:
Again, you've missed the point of my claim. Why am I not surprised.

Epstein taking pictures with celebrities isn't the point. It's about how a fake Photoshop is a despicable act by despicable people when the person who is fake photoshopped is a Democrat but just a funny fake when the person has an R next to their name.

A response from you that would disprove my point would be one where 'left brain' people here called a left fake:

"Despicable! And something only a horrible human would do."

You'd never find such. What you'd find are post like yours that misses the point. Whether this is inadvertent or on purpose I don't know.
Click to expand...
1000030366.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top