2024 Election - Trump vs. Harris, important downballot

[VMSmith]

I thought this was fairly well-known.

South Korea finally banned the eating of dog meat this year.

[fwc577]

Yeah, I don't believe everything I read in DM here but if this is true, Fuck Nancy Pelosi, tired of her shit and the dinosaurs in the Dem party need to step the fuck back.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...eadership.html

[Edge-]

Yeah, I don't believe everything I read in DM here but if this is true, Fuck Nancy Pelosi, tired of her shit and the dinosaurs in the Dem party need to step the fuck back.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...eadership.html

https://newrepublic.com/post/189329/...-undermine-aoc

Pelosi is making calls on behalf of Representative Gerry Connolly, a 16-year House veteran from Virginia, who is also running for the coveted leadership spot.

Last week, Pelosi told Politico who she wanted for one of the most influential positions in the House. “I have supported Mr. Connolly for that, should it be open,” she said.

So...she's already stated who she supports for the position and is making calls to support them. That's like...very normal stuff and not her "working to undermine AOC". A big part of getting these coveted seats is getting the support from influential members of the caucus.

Note: This isn't to say I'm happy with this or don't think AOC should have a serious shot even if she's been in the House for less time (which is a considering factor), or that I like everything Nancy does. But this is hardly "knives out" lol, this is very routine internal stuff. Unsurprisingly the Daily Mail is indeed a dogshit source.

[NED funded]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/whi...ine-rcna117348

We will never get back a president that openly walks the picket line with unions. RIP the most pro labour administration.

[DarkTZeratul]

RIP the most pro labour administration.

Especially since Manchin and Sinema tanked his NLRB appointees, leaving the positions open for Trump to fill.

[fwc577]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/whi...ine-rcna117348

We will never get back a president that openly walks the picket line with unions. RIP the most pro labour administration.

We can. Certainly not Biden. But it's time that some of the Dem Leadership and well known faces exit their Ivory towers like this.

What the fuck else does Biden have to do? Have him spend a week out there. That type of shit will do A LOT and get noticed by organized labor where I'm pretty sure Dems lost ground with in this election because of the brain rot right-wing propaganda.

[Kaleredar]

We can. Certainly not Biden. But it's time that some of the Dem Leadership and well known faces exit their Ivory towers like this.

What the fuck else does Biden have to do? Have him spend a week out there. That type of shit will do A LOT and get noticed by organized labor where I'm pretty sure Dems lost ground with in this election because of the brain rot right-wing propaganda.

Unfortunately there's practically zero chance of that "noticing" extending to the next election. Or even midterm.

People couldn't remember that Biden's pro-union stances extended to Harris, his damn VP, in real time as they were happening. They aren't going to remember in four years, after X number of Trump debacles, that a dem president walked a picket line one time.

If there are unions that are unhappy with trump's plan to destroy the economy and sell them out to big business, they probably should have taken a stance against him. Unfortunately, many of them threw up their hands and said "eh, Trump doesn't sound great, but at least he's not an icky bossy girl."

[NED funded]

It doesnt matter now, but the Burisma fbi informant admitted that he consistently lied.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/12/12/p...lea/index.html

It was all a smear.

[PhaelixWW]

It doesnt matter now, but the Burisma fbi informant admitted that he consistently lied.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/12/12/p...lea/index.html

It was all a smear.

Are we sure it doesn't still matter?

Dollars to donuts, Trump was (is?) going to "open an investigation" against Biden for anything and everything he can think of.

[fwc577]

I straight up just fucking hate conservatives. They're fucking idiots and have 0 brain cells. The rank-and-file are dumb fucking sheep that cannot think for themselves.

I currently live in a town that has some fucktardlicans on the School Board and they're too busy trying to ban books and trans kids so they can ignore the fact that the district has failing attendance and test rates and is becoming a typical CONservative shithole despite the fact it used to be one of the top districts in the state.

Out of nowhere, someone who wanted a book banned posted "their thoughts" on our community / town page, which nobody fucking wanted.

i ended up responding at one point in a hyperbolic manner saying that Conservatives just want babies birthed, hand em a bible, and send them off to the mines at aged 13.

This was in response to a left-leaning individual posting about how the fact they want books banned and not have to have hard conversation and tell kids what they don't want them reading is just lazy parenting.

So after my hyperbolic comment, betty-sue-homemaker who is fucktardlican brainwashed by her Trump-loving husband felt the need to chime in. Claiming she's a common sense Republican who likes compromise and don't put us all in one basket. Then went into some giant screed about how these books should be banned at certain age levels and be fully allowed at certain age levels, whatever.

My response was that she claims she's not like other Conservatives and wants compromise, but the actions at the voting booth say otherwise as Conservatives keep electing people with hardline stances therefore, their stances are not one of compromise and working together, because that's not what their voting records state.

She, predictably, came back with the "but both sides" argument (without giving any specifics) and then, oh, by the way, I'm left leaning on many issues but a fiscal conservative.

So of course, I ask, what issues do you think Democrats are "all or nothing" on and absolutely do not want to compromise on? Also, if she WAS actually fiscal conservative, she would never vote for a Republican because they're not fiscally conservative and I added a picture of a graph showing both the $ change and % change to the national debt every President has added going all the way back to Carter.

To which I get the reply, well how dare you tone police me, this is exactly what I'm talking about with you people, goodnight!

Bitch, I hope you choke in your fucking sleep.

[Endus]

oh, by the way, I'm left leaning on many issues but a fiscal conservative.

Anyone who tells you (or anyone) this specific phrase is one of two things;

1> Actively gaslighting you and pretending you're too stupid to notice, or
2> Willfully ignorant to a very deep degree, and without an ounce of critical thinking or self-reflection.

It's one of the two. 100% of people who self-describe as "fiscal conservatives" fit in one or both boxes.

It's a nonsense phrase. Everyone is a fiscal conservative. Nobody's out here saying "hey, we should tax people more so we can put that money in pile and set the pile on fire". We all agree that government needs to be efficient and cost as little as possible while still being effective.

We disagree on what government should be doing, and thus, what needs to be funded.

What "fiscal conservatives" really mean is "we want to stop spending on these issues that you support, while maximizing spending on the issues we support". That's it. That's why "conservatives" almost never actually lower budgets and spend more sparingly. It's not about reducing spending. It's about cutting programs they politically disapprove of. And they're too fuckin' chickenshit to tell you that straight to your face, because "I think more kids should go hungry" or "no, I don't agree that we need to help lift people out of poverty, the poor can go fuck themselves" just straight-out exposes the inherent malevolence behind their political views.

That's the main difference; progressives want a better society for everyone. Conservatives want a better society for conservatives, and only the "proper" ones at that.

[Kaleredar]

I straight up just fucking hate conservatives. They're fucking idiots and have 0 brain cells. The rank-and-file are dumb fucking sheep that cannot think for themselves.

I currently live in a town that has some fucktardlicans on the School Board and they're too busy trying to ban books and trans kids so they can ignore the fact that the district has failing attendance and test rates and is becoming a typical CONservative shithole despite the fact it used to be one of the top districts in the state.

Out of nowhere, someone who wanted a book banned posted "their thoughts" on our community / town page, which nobody fucking wanted.

i ended up responding at one point in a hyperbolic manner saying that Conservatives just want babies birthed, hand em a bible, and send them off to the mines at aged 13.

This was in response to a left-leaning individual posting about how the fact they want books banned and not have to have hard conversation and tell kids what they don't want them reading is just lazy parenting.

So after my hyperbolic comment, betty-sue-homemaker who is fucktardlican brainwashed by her Trump-loving husband felt the need to chime in. Claiming she's a common sense Republican who likes compromise and don't put us all in one basket. Then went into some giant screed about how these books should be banned at certain age levels and be fully allowed at certain age levels, whatever.

My response was that she claims she's not like other Conservatives and wants compromise, but the actions at the voting booth say otherwise as Conservatives keep electing people with hardline stances therefore, their stances are not one of compromise and working together, because that's not what their voting records state.

She, predictably, came back with the "but both sides" argument (without giving any specifics) and then, oh, by the way, I'm left leaning on many issues but a fiscal conservative.

So of course, I ask, what issues do you think Democrats are "all or nothing" on and absolutely do not want to compromise on? Also, if she WAS actually fiscal conservative, she would never vote for a Republican because they're not fiscally conservative and I added a picture of a graph showing both the $ change and % change to the national debt every President has added going all the way back to Carter.

To which I get the reply, well how dare you tone police me, this is exactly what I'm talking about with you people, goodnight!

Bitch, I hope you choke in your fucking sleep.

Arguing with people online is the prime mistake, there.

The conservatives around these forums are mostly just dipshit trolls who, like the cackling monkey-lizard puppet ensconced in Jaba’s fat folds, just know to laugh when their fat orange master laughs. Why is he laughing? Is his laughter good for them? They don’t know or care. All they know is that they must laugh because the slug man laughed. And that’s all they are; a bunch of cackling muppets. Or foreign trolls cosplaying as cackling muppets. Either way it’s just an inarticulate, discordant chorus of laughing foam latex around here.

But those school board people have an actual investiture; their children, and the general investiture of middle-America busybodies. And clearly time to spare. Arguing with them online obviously won’t do anything, and inflaming them might actually be counterintuitive because they can actually take direct action on something, unlike the conservatives around here who cackle and pearl clutch into the void.

You need to take action out of online spaces where it’s pointless faff and to actual levels that matter. And engage with them in a way that requires tact.

[Bodakane]

Arguing with people online is the prime mistake, there.

The conservatives around these forums are mostly just dipshit trolls who, like the cackling monkey-lizard puppet ensconced in Jaba’s fat folds, just know to laugh when their fat orange master laughs. Why is he laughing? Is his laughter good for them? They don’t know or care. All they know is that they must laugh because the slug man laughed. And that’s all they are; a bunch of cackling muppets. Or foreign trolls cosplaying as cackling muppets. Either way it’s just an inarticulate, discordant chorus of laughing foam latex around here.

But those school board people have an actual investiture; their children, and the general investiture of middle-America busybodies. And clearly time to spare. Arguing with them online obviously won’t do anything, and inflaming them might actually be counterintuitive because they can actually take direct action on something, unlike the conservatives around here who cackle and pearl clutch into the void.

You need to take action out of online spaces where it’s pointless faff and to actual levels that matter. And engage with them in a way that requires tact.

I agree with everything you said, except the part about it being pointless to argue this stuff online. While I doubt anyone change a repub's mind, there are people who are reading it who might have their minds changed. Also, if we stop arguing with the right on social media apps, then their message will be the only one reaching people.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/whi...ine-rcna117348

We will never get back a president that openly walks the picket line with unions. RIP the most pro labour administration.

There's a chance, that all this RRR outrage and impeding class war, will show the Dems what their platform should be going forward.

I'm not holding my breath or anything, but there's a chance Luigi sparked a real revolution.

[tehdang]

So after my hyperbolic comment, betty-sue-homemaker who is fucktardlican brainwashed by her Trump-loving husband felt the need to chime in. Claiming she's a common sense Republican who likes compromise and don't put us all in one basket. Then went into some giant screed about how these books should be banned at certain age levels and be fully allowed at certain age levels, whatever.

That's exactly how any sensible person should respond to accusations about book bans. Age-appropriate books available to kids in school or public library should be the norm. It's absolutely fine for parents and school boards and teachers and administrators to debate what books qualify.

You'll continually lose and deserve to lose those fights if you act dismissively about the whole topic by screaming hyperbolically about book bans.

My response was that she claims she's not like other Conservatives and wants compromise, but the actions at the voting booth say otherwise as Conservatives keep electing people with hardline stances therefore, their stances are not one of compromise and working together, because that's not what their voting records state.

She, predictably, came back with the "but both sides" argument (without giving any specifics) and then, oh, by the way, I'm left leaning on many issues but a fiscal conservative.

So of course, I ask, what issues do you think Democrats are "all or nothing" on and absolutely do not want to compromise on? Also, if she WAS actually fiscal conservative, she would never vote for a Republican because they're not fiscally conservative and I added a picture of a graph showing both the $ change and % change to the national debt every President has added going all the way back to Carter.

To which I get the reply, well how dare you tone police me, this is exactly what I'm talking about with you people, goodnight!

Bitch, I hope you choke in your fucking sleep.

What examples did she give on how she was left-leaning? What did you say that she felt was "tone policing?"

[Bodakane]

That's exactly how any sensible person should respond to accusations about book bans. Age-appropriate books available to kids in school or public library should be the norm. It's absolutely fine for parents and school boards and teachers and administrators to debate what books qualify.

You'll continually lose and deserve to lose those fights if you act dismissively about the whole topic by screaming hyperbolically about book bans.

No one is arguing that age appropriates books should be in schools (public libraries no, because adults use them too and at some point its the parent's responsibility to police their own goddamned children). The argument is what is age appropriate. No is saying 120 Days of Sodom should be available to elementary school kids. The problem is that you and the rest of the book burners want anything that even mentions LGBTQ to be tossed into the sun because all of you are bigots.

And again, when do you hypocrites in the "party of self responsibility" ever actually practice that? Like why the hell don't you guys police your own damn children? Why do you think you should have the right to dictate what someone else lets their kid read?

[NED funded]

Don't make the mistake of thinking conservatives have principles. They don't. They have objectives and policy goals they want to achieve, everything else is just a means to reach that end. Conservatives do not genuinely care that the state is imposing on the children or whatever, what they REALLY care about is having a religious conservative education. When they do not have power, they will use the excuse that its not the job of the state to raise their children, when they have power they will use that same state to enforce that religious conservative education and raise the children of others.

Once you think of conservatives like the unprincipled fucks they are, you get a better understanding of what they really want.

[Bodakane]

Don't make the mistake of thinking conservatives have principles. They don't. They have objectives and policy goals they want to achieve, everything else is just a means to reach that end. Conservatives do not genuinely care that the state is imposing on the children or whatever, what they REALLY care about is having a religious conservative education. When they do not have power, they will use the excuse that its not the job of the state to raise their children, when they have power they will use that same state to enforce that religious conservative education and raise the children of others.

Once you think of conservatives like the unprincipled fucks they are, you get a better understanding of what they really want.

Oh I know, I'm just challenging one to talk their way out of this without having FOX to give them marching orders on the argument.

[Anastacy]

LOL, the most popular book in the world has rape, incest, murder, lying, cheating, etc.

And Oklahoma just bought a shitload to put in their schools.

[Endus]

That's exactly how any sensible person should respond to accusations about book bans. Age-appropriate books available to kids in school or public library should be the norm. It's absolutely fine for parents and school boards and teachers and administrators to debate what books qualify.

"Age-appropriate" is the weasel word in that statement. Short of actual pornography, if a kid can read a book, it's "age-appropriate". If they're reading stuff that provokes uncomfortable questions to their parents, that's where you get to parent your child. Banning books that contain content you disapprove of and which you don't want to openly discuss is entirely about you, not your (or any) child's welfare.

You'll continually lose and deserve to lose those fights if you act dismissively about the whole topic by screaming hyperbolically about book bans.

If you're seeking to have books removed from libraries, that's a "book ban". There's no "hyperbole".

[NED funded]

As a side on the book bans. Are we really saying that there is a real danger that children will READ A BOOK IN A LIBRARY at all

All around the world children are just straight up not reading books much less in a library