WDSmart

@Yagoda, I am living in a different reality than others. I am 78 years old. I've seen a lot of things most people have not. I think the best issue you raised in your post was about Censorship. All this information we get every day from Internet sources like FB/Meta, Instagram, X, and AseanNow Forums is doing a lot of damage to our society. The problem is no one knows for sure what they can believe! An example is the terrorist attacks on 9-11 that destroyed two buildings in NYC and damaged the Pentagon. Now, do I know for sure that they really happened? No, I don't. I'd never seen the Two Towers before the alleged attack and have never been to NYC since to see that they are now gone. I only believe that because I take the word of the many of those who have reported on it. It could actually all be a hoax. But I do believe it happened. So, what else should I believe that I see reported on the Internet or on TV? Most of us have a few sources that we trust and believe whatever that source reports. That source for me is CNN. Just how this can be ameliorated, I don't know, but I do think it's very important that we try to come up with something that will at least warn people about possible fraudulent news.

This could take a while.... Experimental genital mutilation of children I really don't know what you mean by this, but I would disagree with any "experimental" mutilations being done on anyone. I'm sure Harris has not suggested she is for anything like this. I don't even think circumcisions should be done, although I, myself, have been circumcised. Leaving viable aborted babies to die I disagree with this and am positive both Harris and Walz do, too. The recent law in Minnesota doesn't allow this in spite of the reports otherwise. Removing children from parents who oppose trans programming I disagree with this, and I am sure Harris does, too. A fully open border I disagree with this, and I am sure Harris does, too. Taxpayer funding of boobs for trans prisoners I disagree with this, and I am sure Harris does, too. I've never heard of this before. Kneeling during the anthem I don't care anything about this, and I am sure Harris doesn't, either. No No to Deportation I disagree with this unless it's done according to the law. Legal immigrants should not be deported. Ban on fracking I'd be for this, but Harris has softened her stance on this, to my regret. Ban on stoves and ACs I disagree with this, and I am sure Harris does, too. I've never heard of this. The green new deal I'm for this. Censorship I am against this if it refers to expressing your opinion. I know something has to be done about all the false information posted on the Internet, but I don't know what. I don't think prohibiting will work because then it's just up to someone else to decide what is true and what is false. Social media is and will continue to present us with a big, big problem. Higher inflation I'm against this, but social issues are more important to me than economic ones. War I'm against this unless it is the last and only option. Iran I think they should be treated like any other country. I know they are being drawn into war with Israel, and I think we should stay out of this conflict as far as aiding either side with weapons or money. We should just try to help negotiate a ceasefire. Anti-semitism I am not anti-Jew or anti-Arab/Muslim and am not anti-Israeli or anti-Palestinian, but I think neither side is willing to live together in a two-state solution. I think we should not support either side and, as I said above, help either side as far as aiding either side with weapons or money. We should just try to help negotiate (force, if necessary) a ceasefire. anti-catholicism I am anti-religion, so in a way, I am anti-Catholic - at least as far as allowing any religion to impose it's version of morality on others. Violence against women I am against that, of course, and I'm sure Harris is too, but I probably don't know what you really mean by this. Men in womens sports I think as long as we have sports segregated into "men" and "women," that should be enforced - both ways. I don't think women should be allowed to participate in men's sports as they have in the past, like in golf. I think there needs to be a medical test to determine gender where that is challenged. What that test should be, I don't know, but I do think trans people (going both ways) should be allowed to compete if they pass that test. Rioting This is, of course, against the law. I oppose it. So, I hope that answers your questions, but it probably will create others...

Well, you succeeded. It's difficult to discuss the political, social, and economic conditions in the USA today without mentioning Trump. Oh! 😮 There, I did it again! 😄

No, @Nick Carter icpthat would not have expressed my point, which, if you haven't gotten by now, my repeating it won't help.

Was it found to be human feces? Or was it some from other animal?

"Automatic weapons"! Where did they get those?

Sounds like a violation of freedom of speech to me...

No trips into space, especially to another celestial body like the Moon or Mars, should even be thought about until we learn to live both socially and environmentally compatible here on Earth. If we do, we should not call that "colonizing"; that should be called "metasticising."

Who did you vote for ? My ballot was marked Harris. But, as I said above and meant, I did not vote FOR her in the respect that I think she would make a good choice as president. My vote was focused on voting AGAINST Trump, and the best way to try to defeat him was to cast my vote in favor of Harris.

I have voted and did not vote FOR Harris; I voted AGAINST Trump.

I disagree with you on most of these, and I even support some of them. Trump is a dangerous felon who did a horrible job last time, and if re-elected, will cause destructive turmoil in the USA I also am not sure what you mean by saying, "...you are a foreigner." I was born and still am a citizen of the USA. In fact, I just returned my vote in the November elections. I am a foreigner here in Thailand, but I have a Thai wife and have lived here for over 20 years now. I have no intention of returning to the USA, at least not relocating there. .

As far as Pete goes, he is a bright guy, and I've really been impressed with the video snippets of his remarks. But, as you say, there's really nothing outstanding yet. I'd like to see him in a debate setting and hear his answers to a lot of the important questions. I thought Shapiro would be the best choice for the vice presidential nominee, too, but mostly because he is from Pennsylvania, a very important state in the election. I'm happy, though, with Walz. I like the way he presents himself and hope he will be our (USA) next vice president. I've already sent in my vote for him and Kamala—not that my vote matters a lot since I'm registered to vote in California.

Yes! Buttigieg would have been my choice for VP, too. And in fact, for president someday. But I don't think the US voters are ready for people like him yet. Maybe someday, but not anytime soon.

Again, I'm removing a duplicate post. I keep doing this because nothing happens when I click on Submit. So, after I waited for about 10 seconds, I clicked again.

I think Walz won, but I admit I'm extremely biased about all this. I will say I did think Vance did better than I expected. He lied at times, but at least he was moderately respectful and polite.

Lock him up!

Lock them up!

Lock them up!

Lock him up!

I do see the USA morphing into an oligarch - a plutocracy. On that, we agree. I myself am a far-left liberal and advocate some form of democratic socialism, removing the capitalistic portions of our economy. But I know that will not happen in my lifetime, especially mine since I am now 78 years old. Oh well, we'll all have to do our best with what we've got and try to make whatever changes we feel are important to support the society in which we want to live.

Right now, I think the wait to apply for citizenship in the USA is five years. By "true democracy," I just mean allowing all citizens to vote (with a minimum age qualification and not felons in prison). So, in that sense, all citizens are "equal." Under the USA's capitalistic economic system, no, they certainly are not "equal." To be truly equal, you'd have to go clear to a communistic economy. Even in socialism, not everyone is "equal" in the sense that they all share everything equally. Anyway, I think once an immigrant has qualified to become a citizen, he/she should be eligible to register to vote—even former pig farmers from Nicaragua.

Sorry, I didn't see your "8 year" suggestion. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but that obviously is not what the majority of voters in the USA want. I had to look up "Lumpenproletariat." Others who have never heard that term can read about it here: Lumpenproletariat - Wikipedia. That categorization is, of course, not applicable to a true democracy, but I do understand why some who are not lumpenproletariats themselves would like to see people like that restricted from voting. In my book, you either have a democracy or you don't. The more you limit access to voting, the further you move from true democracy and into some other form of government, most likely an aristocracy, oligarch, plutocracy, or, what we (USA) are heading into if Trump gets re-elected, a kakistocracy. Kakistocracy - Wikipedia

So, my question above is still relevant: "How long do you think a citizen should have to be a citizen before he/she should be allowed to vote? Or what other qualifications do you think he/she should have?" Please answer that. If you believe democracy should only be practiced in a "small local population with a vested interest in land ownership," then you're thinking exactly the way our (USA) forefathers did when they limited voting to only White landowners. But now, as I've said before, our (USA) laws governing citizenship and voting have changed. Those changes came about as a result of a democratic voting process (in each state in the republic. So, yes, all those changes allowing all citizens of all races, of all genders, over 18, with no regard to wealth, and registered to vote has caused a massive distortion of the political landscape. So what? That's democracy at work. You may not like the results. I sometimes don't like the results myself. But that's all part of the democratic process. The majority calls the shots, not just the wealthy, like those who have a "vested interest and land ownership. Please answer my previous question, which I've repeated at the top of this comment. I'd appreciate that.

If he/she has the qualifications and passes the tests to become a US citizen, is one, and has registered to vote, then of course I am. Why wouldn't I be? And in anticipation of your response, how long do you think a citizen should have to be a citizen before he/she should be allowed to vote? Or what other qualifications do you think he/she should have?

Thanks for the history lesson. I did not know all of that. In my home country, the USA, at first, only citizens who were White landowners could vote. Eventually, and over a long period of time, the restrictions were reduced to all citizens of all races, of all genders, over 18, with no regard to wealth, and were registered to vote. Even citizens who have been convicted of a felony after being released from prison are eligible to vote in about half of the states. So, if a recent immigrant is granted citizenship, they should be allowed to register to vote. TO NOT DO SO would be a breach of democracy. You can read my opinion about the US Electoral College written in 2016 here: Rung & Bill: US Electoral College - Opinion (billsmart.com) And, yes, the Democrats are doing things to increase the number of voters who would be most favorable to them, just as the Republicans are doing things to decrease the number of voters in the hope of retaining their lead in the swing states. A voting population that favors Democrats is not a threat to democracy, and neither is one that favors Republicans. What threatens democracy is how the laws of the various states are enacted to prevent or discourage voting.