Politics & Stuff

[Fulham Broadway 16,797]

1 hour ago, cosmicway said:

In fact I think she 's the best option for 2028

But are the electorate open to someone else than old white guys ?

[Vesper 28,701]

Just now, Fulham Broadway said:

But are the electorate open to someone else than old white guys ?

The Democrats would be crazy to run another woman and/or anyone LGBTQ.

Sorry Whitmer, but your time is probably never going to come.

Sorry Buttigieg, but the US is likely not going to elect a gay man atm.

Also, NO MORE BABY BOOMERS.

That generation has been disastrous for the US in so many ways.

[Vesper 28,701]

22 hours ago, Sir Mikel OBE said:

They need to get these clowns off of tv also:

 

 

to be honest

as Harris IS a mixed race black woman

and she likely would NOT have won a normal length Democratic Party primary (Biden NEVER should have tried to run again, he clearly was too old and mentally diminished, so a lot of blame goes to him)

If I was a Democratic voter, and Biden had said, say 2 years ago, that he will not run again, I NEVER would have voted in the primary for Harris

she did run a superb campaign, given who she is, and the short time she had, but she could not overcome who she was

the main problem was that the US just will not elect a person like that now, and likely for a good long time, with the emphasis on her being a female especially, but also, after Obama, a black person as well (Wes Moore is the only black man who has any chance to win a Dem primary in 2028, but I think it is too risky, IMHO)

be that right or wrong, it is just the facts now IMHO

I am pragmatic on this, and I think the Democrats would be insane to try and force another woman (atm) as their 2028

I am NOT going to, going forward, dwell on all the (and this is key) NON MAGA Trump voters (there were tens of millions of them)

I do not see the vast majority of them as 'enemies'

I see the Democrats as ignoring them, and (Harris did not do this in her campaign but a big swathe of the Democratic Party sure does) or trying to ram the most extreme things regarding certain subjects, down the voters throats

Perfect examples are

1. Flat out insisting that male to female trans folk be allowed to participate against us biological womewn in sports. I am so againt that personally, and I take massive shit from so many people on the radical end of that stance.

2. Insisting that abortion MUST be allowed ANY TIME, for ANY REASON, right up until birth. That is not just madness in terms of politics in the US, but, as I have stated over and over, I DO think that if sentientness and/or viabily has occrured, it is murder (if it is NOT done to save the life and/or health (as in grave impact only) of the mother).

[Fulham Broadway 16,797]

36 minutes ago, Vesper said:

The Democrats would be crazy to run another woman and/or anyone LGBTQ.

Sorry Whitmer, but your time is probably never going to come.

Sorry Buttigieg, but the US is likely not going to elect a gay man atm.

Also, NO MORE BABY BOOMERS.

That generation has been disastrous for the US in so many ways.

iTo me It has to be seen as a long term project

eg Abortion and progressive taxation legislation taking 40 years from 1970s

Similarly from the founding of the NAACP in 1909 - there wasn't substantial voting rights until 1964

The crucial thing is not to fall for the billionaires 'Culture Wars' that they promote to divide people at every opportunity - this is their biggest priority because they are greedy and want more and more. They hate Solidarity between ordinary people, and dont want us educated

[Vesper 28,701]

22 hours ago, Fernando said:

Another I mentioned before is that I would thought the Biden team lost a lot of support for the whole Israel and Gaza war. 

And that theory was right I saw the votes in Michigan where a lot of Muslims are voted for Trump.... 

And ya that is Biden but many saw kamala as an extension of Biden. 

I think if Democrat had chosen another person not align to Biden they would have won. 

Biden fucked it up, and badly, by not saying, 2 years ago, after the Dem lost the US House (thus making it impossible to get any more significant legislation passed) that he would not run again.

A normal Democratic primary (with no Biden putting his finger on the scale and endorsing Harris) would likely NEVER have resulted in a Harris victory there.

He waited too long, FAR too long to drop out, and an open convention would have also been a disaster. At that point, Harris was the only one who could get the nod without ripping the part apart to a huge degree, but she was far from an ideal candidate for a US general POTUS election (due her race and gender, and especially those two thing combined). The only 2 thing she lacked in terms of the  'Big 4 of Trouble for an American POTUS candidate' was if she was queer and if she was an athiest.

I am all 4 things, I am mixed race black, I am female, I am open lesbian, and I am an open atheist.

A person like me could NEVER win a US Presidential election, not for say 30, 40 years at least (especially the open atheist part, lolol).

 

[Vesper 28,701]

I also want to keep this simple in terms of the actual election loss.

I do not care who the Dems ran, they would have likely lost because of several main issues

The cost of living explosion

Food, rent, mortgages (ie cost of buying a flat or house), energy (in terms of American cost, they are used to energy prices FAR below ours over here in Europe(UK included)

The US Mexican border explosion of illegal immigration (regardless of how it has lowered, it was out of control under Biden (and the Republicans made sure it was not fixed by blocking bi-partisan reforms, with the blocking done to aid Trump's campaign)

Far too many fringe, bad, extreme social justice stances taken by radical elements that allowed the RW to smear ALL (including some 100 per cent legit things that were simple fairness stances, not extreme AT ALL) remotely related stances as 'Woke' and bonkers

[Vesper 28,701]

1 hour ago, Fulham Broadway said:

iTo me It has to be seen as a long term project

eg Abortion and progressive taxation legislation taking 40 years from 1970s

Similarly from the founding of the NAACP in 1909 - there wasn't substantial voting rights until 1964

The crucial thing is not to fall for the billionaires 'Culture Wars' that they promote to divide people at every opportunity - this is their biggest priority because they are greedy and want more and more. They hate Solidarity between ordinary people, and dont want us educated

100 per cent agree with most all of that

I do want to add that as a a biological female (and a lesbian as well) that I am fucking sick and tired of the ultra extreme male to female trans activists attacking us females, and dragging us LBG (no T) folk into an area where we are being attacked for their extreme, unfair absolutist stances.

I think I have brought this up before, but I am not some 'gay PLUS trans warrior',  'all or bust, inclusive af ANY stance' type in terms of real life poltical involvement with hyper feminist and /or LGBTQ activism.

My wife and I used to belong to a women's group here in Stockholm.

Some lesbians but mostly cis-het, straight women, and it was pretty young demographically, 90 per cent or so were 15 to 45 years old.

We had a special event to do with womens reproductive health, women's general health, and general women's rights.

Several fairly new male to female trans folk joined the group a few months before it.

They were hugely disruptive, super agressive (typical bad stereotypical male behaviours) and try have the event shut down (they filed legal papers) because they said we were discriminating against them, as they did not have female reproductive organs and it was 'hurtful and hateful' to focus on those things as it was exclusionary to them.

Ludicrous, as they were free to come, as were cis gendered men (straight or gay, whatever gender or no gender, we welcomed all people to our special events).

They lost the legal battle, but they did rip the group apart eventually at our regular meetings, and left a profoundly bitter taste in many of our mouths.

Multiple friends of ours in other groups have reported the same things have happened to them, in many other countries, including the UK and the US.

I detest that shit, not going to lie. I am very bitter about it from every angle.

 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Vesper

[Fulham Broadway 16,797]

16 minutes ago, Vesper said:

100 per cent agree with most all of that

I do want to add that asa a biologicla female (and a lesbian as well) that I am fucking sick and tired of th ultra extreme male to female trans activists attacking us females, and dragging us LBG (no T) folk into an area where we are being attacked for their extreme, unfair absolutist stances.

I think I have brought this up before, but I am not some 'gay PLUS trans warrior',  'all or bust, inclusive af ANY stance' type in terms of real life poltical involvement with hyper feminist and /or LGBTQ activism.

My wife and I used to belong to a women's group here in Stockholm.

Some lesbians but mostly cis-het, straight women, and it was pretty young demographically, 90 per cent or so were 15 to 45 years old.

We had a special event to do with womens reproductive health, women's general health, and general women's rights.

Several fairly new male to female trans folk joined the group a few months before it.

They were hugely disruptive, super agressive (typical bad stereotypical male behaviours) and try have the event shut down (they filed legal papers) because they said we were discriminating against them, as they did not have female reproductive organs and it was 'hurtful and hateful' to focus on those things as it was exclusionary to them.

Ludicrous, as they were free to come, as were cis gendered men (straight or gay, whatever gender or no gender, we welcomed all people to our special events).

They lost the legal battle, but they did rip the group apart eventually at our regular meetings, and left a profoundly bitter taste in many of our mouths.

Multiple friends of ours in other groups have reported the same things have happened to them, in many other countries, including the UK and the US.

I detest that shit, not going to lie. I am very bitter about it from every angle.

 

 

Great perspective.

 Men becoming Women and visa versa is a minefield - and yes here men deciding they are women has been immensely disruptful at best and resulted in rape (esp in prisons) at worst.

However, I dont think the Culture Wars they promote can be underestimated - a lot of the gender bending myths are just that -myths. Useful to outrage people.

In numerous instances, conspiracy theories  originated from small anonymous accounts online and made their way up to the Republican party brass, reposted by Congresspeople, officials, and both Donald Trump and JD Vance. 

Whether it’s Haitian migrants accused of eating cats and dogs, or federal disaster relief workers accused of supporting illegal migrants, a litany of bizarre claims were promulgated by a social media machine that fed on outrage. Trump and Vance seized on these opportunities, looking to stir division and uncertainty.

Similarly in London check out 55 Tufton Street - full of right wing 'Think Tanks'. 

Ridiculous notions eminate from these 'Think tanks' that then appear in 'main stream' media and newspapers - the same 'newspapers' and media outlets owned by billionaires.

The old adage 'Divide and Rule' is still widely used to keep us down

[Vesper 28,701]

15 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Great perspective.

 Men becoming Women and visa versa is a minefield - and yes here men deciding they are women has been immensely disruptful at best and resulted in rape (esp in prisons) at worst.

However, I dont think the Culture Wars they promote can be underestimated - a lot of the gender bending myths are just that -myths. Useful to outrage people.

In numerous instances, conspiracy theories  originated from small anonymous accounts online and made their way up to the Republican party brass, reposted by Congresspeople, officials, and both Donald Trump and JD Vance. 

Whether it’s Haitian migrants accused of eating cats and dogs, or federal disaster relief workers accused of supporting illegal migrants, a litany of bizarre claims were promulgated by a social media machine that fed on outrage. Trump and Vance seized on these opportunities, looking to stir division and uncertainty.

Similarly in London check out 55 Tufton Street - full of right wing 'Think Tanks'. 

Ridiculous notions eminate from these 'Think tanks' that then appear in 'main stream' media and newspapers - the same 'newspapers' and media outlets owned by billionaires.

The old adage 'Divide and Rule' is still widely used to keep us down

absolutely agree

I destest politics atm

it's far too all a billionaire/oligarchic/bankster spun-up divide et impera mug's game

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,918]

1 hour ago, Vesper said:

to be honest

as Harris IS a mixed race black woman

and she likely would NOT have won a normal length Democratic Party primary (Biden NEVER should have tried to run again, he clearly was too old and mentally diminished, so a lot of blame goes to him)

If I was a Democratic voter, and Biden had said, say 2 years ago, that he will not run again, I NEVER would have voted in the primary for Harris

she did run a superb campaign, given who she is, and the short time she had, but she could not overcome who she was

the main problem was that the US just will not elect a person like that now, and likely for a good long time, with the emphasis on her being a female especially, but also, after Obama, a black person as well (Wes Moore is the only black man who has any chance to win a Dem primary in 2028, but I think it is too risky, IMHO)

be that right or wrong, it is just the facts now IMHO

I am pragmatic on this, and I think the Democrats would be insane to try and force another woman (atm) as their 2028

I am NOT going to, going forward, dwell on all the (and this is key) NON MAGA Trump voters (there were tens of millions of them)

I do not see the vast majority of them as 'enemies'

I see the Democrats as ignoring them, and (Harris did not do this in her campaign but a big swathe of the Democratic Party sure does) or trying to ram the most extreme things regarding certain subjects, down the voters throats

Perfect examples are

1. Flat out insisting that male to female trans folk be allowed to participate against us biological womewn in sports. I am so againt that personally, and I take massive shit from so many people on the radical end of that stance.

2. Insisting that abortion MUST be allowed ANY TIME, for ANY REASON, right up until birth. That is not just madness in terms of politics in the US, but, as I have stated over and over, I DO think that if sentientness and/or viabily has occrured, it is murder (if it is NOT done to save the life and/or health (as in grave impact only) of the mother).

Obama won 2x as a black identifying man. The idea that the country is now completely shut off to electing someone based on race is one simply not rooted in reality.

The country is racist, but that isnt the reason why Kamala was unlikable, unrelatable, and not a strong candidate. In fact, she isnt even half as black as Barack presented. Barack was a black guy, in black churches, married to an unambiguously black woman, raising unambiguously black daughters. He was a black candidate. Kamala is a woman who was much more racially ambiguous, a white husband, white identifying stepchildren, less part of the soil, and less directly black. Her strength came in the fact that she was a POC in every sense of the word. You couldnt immediately place her, and that was a strength she could have built during a true primary. She could have been the first biracial candidate, and she still could be in 2028 with better positioning.

The radical stuff around abortion and trans in sports did push people away, but honestly thats simply where the world will go. I'm old enough to remember the idea of Gay marriage being just as offensive to the general red state voter, and they got over it. They'll(eventually) get over the rest of it. This election was lost in the grocery store as I mentioned months ago.

[cosmicway 1,313]

2 hours ago, Fulham Broadway said:

But are the electorate open to someone else than old white guys ?

These things are irrelevent.
You read too much gossip columns.
She put up a brave fight and at the moment I don't see anyone else.
A new JFK ? Where is he ?

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,918]

2 minutes ago, cosmicway said:

These things are irrelevent.
You read too much gossip columns.
She put up a brave fight and at the moment I don't see anyone else.
A new JFK ? Where is he ?

JFK asked white men to ask not what their country can do for them, but what they can do for their country.

 

A white man then made his wife pick up his brain off the back of their car. Obama can scold black men as sexist for not being excited about not being able to feed their families, and a bunch of other self hating black guys agreed with him despite black men being her biggest male demographic😂

As the decease Kevin Samuels would say: "You cant make this shit up"

[cosmicway 1,313]

4 minutes ago, Sir Mikel OBE said:

Obama won 2x as a black identifying man. The idea that the country is now completely shut off to electing someone based on race is one simply not rooted in reality.

The country is racist, but that isnt the reason why Kamala was unlikable, unrelatable, and not a strong candidate. In fact, she isnt even half as black as Barack presented. Barack was a black guy, in black churches, married to an unambiguously black woman, raising unambiguously black daughters. He was a black candidate. Kamala is a woman who was much more racially ambiguous, a white husband, white identifying stepchildren, less part of the soil, and less directly black. Her strength came in the fact that she was a POC in every sense of the word. You couldnt immediately place her, and that was a strength she could have built during a true primary. She could have been the first biracial candidate, and she still could be in 2028 with better positioning.

The radical stuff around abortion and trans in sports did push people away, but honestly thats simply where the world will go. I'm old enough to remember the idea of Gay marriage being just as offensive to the general red state voter, and they got over it. They'll(eventually) get over the rest of it. This election was lost in the grocery store as I mentioned months ago.

Nonsense.
You wanted her to be white to pick votes where from ?
KKK strongholds in Alabama ?
The mistake she made -I read in many places now- was to give too much emphasis on wokism.
But she was n't alone, there are the advisers also.
 

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,918]

12 minutes ago, cosmicway said:

Nonsense.
You wanted her to be white to pick votes where from ?
KKK strongholds in Alabama ?
The mistake she made -I read in many places now- was to give too much emphasis on wokism.
But she was n't alone, there are the advisers also.
 

Alabama has like 7 electoral votes.

Biden was the god of woke, and won over 80 million votes. If the idea is that being "Woke" is the reason she couldnt even get 70 then they are taking the wrong thing away from this election. Also Biden set her up to fail from day 1

The whole "Im going to pick a black woman" before anything else as a VP pick made her look unqualified even if she was.  Affirmative Action was supposed to be about QUALIFIED minorities getting an opportunity to have a shot at job roles, not just giving folks jobs based on being a minority. The way he spoke made it seem the latter, rather than the former.

Edited 2 hours ago by Sir Mikel OBE

[Fulham Broadway 16,797]

15 minutes ago, cosmicway said:

These things are irrelevent.
You read too much gossip columns.
She put up a brave fight and at the moment I don't see anyone else.
A new JFK ? Where is he ?

Thats not what I said. I read no gossip columns.

Just asked you a simple question, if you thought the electorate were ready for a woman, but to be honest I was half expecting the passive aggressive nonsensical answer

[cosmicway 1,313]

29 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Thats not what I said. I read no gossip columns.

Just asked you a simple question, if you thought the electorate were ready for a woman, but to be honest I was half expecting the passive aggressive nonsensical answer

I don't know anyone who pays attention to the candidate's sex.
Margaret Thatcher was the milk snatcher or the non-milk snatcher to people. But man or woman who cared ?
Same for Angela Merkel, Giorgia Meloni, Dora Bakoyannis ...
You guys read pulp fiction all day.

The thing here is we have a crazy president who hijacked the republican party. 
While it is normal for the two parties to win and lose presidential elections, this one was a hijack and had to be opposed tooth and nail by all sensible men.
Back in 2015 we heard about him as a joke candidate and De Santis was the clear favourite for the 2016 election. But he managed to hijack the rep party.
So it was -really- a fight of freedom and democracy against fascism and the man does indeed have fascist ideas - the only thing we doubt is that he will actually manage to suspend free elections forever.
This fight could have been won narrowly but it was lost and there have been some mistakes to be analyzed.
They must be analyzed thoroughly and not by intuition.

Edited 2 hours ago by cosmicway

[Vesper 28,701]

24 minutes ago, Sir Mikel OBE said:

Obama won 2x as a black identifying man.

and that triggered off a huge counter movement of racial grievenance poltics

it opened the door as soon as he was elected

and he was a man

Harris was both black (and racially mixed inca pretty complicated way) and a women

as I said right above I do agree that the big facts on the ground (especially cost of living) hurt the incumbent party (it always does, think Clinton 1992, when his campaign smashed Bush Sr with 'it's the economy stupid'

think Obama 2008, when the global economic crisis was exploding, and the Republicans (McCain) took a huge hit

I just do not think that the Dems in 2028 should try to push a woman or a gay person for their nominee again

it is too risky, as much as that internally makes me extraordinarily sad on its face

Wes Moore is a black man. He is the only black man who has a shot at winning the 2028 Dem Primary atm. Booker is not going to be able to do it (and I would prefer Moore by far over him atm).

MAYBE Raphael Warnock (US Senator from GA)

He would make a superb POTUS too.

Should they risk it? (it is NOT the America of 2008 or 2012 anymore, and even in 2012 there was huge racial pushback already in full (and growing) effect.

I would love to see Wes Moore win or Warnock win(not at all because they are balck, but because they would make great POTUS's)

I just do not know atm if they are too risky to nominate.

I am pragmatic about US politics, especially in the Trumpian age.

MASSIVE changes will now happen (globally as well unfortunately) due to Trump winning.

It is too early to say if Moore or Warnock are viable ways to go.

Time will tell.

[Vesper 28,701]

3 minutes ago, cosmicway said:

I don't know anyone who pays attention to the candidate's sex.

you need to go to the US, lolololol

talk to Latinos and black men, to give two groups who are, on balance, far too misogynistic at times on certian things

both (granted not only becuase Harris was a woman, but that did hurt her) shifted massive to Trump versus previous elections

and of course many white people also will, not vote for a female POTUS

the US is crazy complicated

Edited 2 hours ago by Vesper