This thread is two brits and an australian arguing with folks about whats best for America. Whats the point

1 minute ago, Chwooly said:

Your sir are a complete and total moron, respond if you will but I have blocked you

Mission accomplished.

3 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

How is any of that....."being in the right place at the right time"...?????

This guy clearly wants to see the usa fail. Trump is his imaginary enemy. He actually has no feelings about it at all

21 minutes ago, Chwooly said:

This gets so old. How is democracy at risk from only 1 side when it is clear that both sides have attempted to subverted it numerous times. 

 

Not quite the same as 31/2 years of blatant lies, encouraging an assault on the Capitol, false accusations of stuffing ballot boxes and false accusations of 'fixing' voting machines.

 

U.S. Democrats have challenged presidential election results in the past.

 

In the 2000 election between Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush. The election results in Florida were so close that it triggered a mandatory recount. The situation eventually led to a legal battle that reached the U.S. Supreme Court in the case *Bush v. Gore*. The Court's decision effectively ended the recount, giving Bush the victory. Gore accepted the ruling, though many Democrats were dissatisfied with the outcome.

Another example occurred after the 2004 election, where some Democrats in Congress challenged the results in Ohio, alleging voting irregularities. This challenge did not alter the outcome, as it was rejected by both the House and the Senate.

In 2016, some Democrats also raised concerns about potential interference in the election and considered challenging the results, but no formal challenge was pursued in Congress.

 

7 minutes ago, Chwooly said:

Why can't you ever address the actual content of the post? Your snide comments make a mockery of anything of value you might have in your post. 

 

To address your comment directly.

 

Vance was prepared to pick up a rifle and was in a combat zone, We will never know how well he would have done in combat as his orders didn't put him  there. Unlike the VP candidate from the other side that retired before ever being in harms way, And as someone with personal experience I know he was well aware of when his unit would be deployed prior to ever receiving orders since orders are only issued after they have determined that the unit is capable of deployment and that is done by talking to the command staff which he was part of. 

 

Could have, would have.

The reality of combat service is that there is a reason why some personnel are sent to non combat roles. In some cases they are of more use and value as a logistics expert or as an analyst or drone operator. it doesn't mean they are any less valuable as a rifelman.  In other cases, they are intentionally sent for desk duties and general clerical functions because they are not considered as reliable or competent or capable as the combat personnel. In some cases, personnel are intentionally sent for clerical duties because they are f ups and present a danger to others or are bad for morale. Every unit has had a walking pain in the butt or a serial screw up. They are moved out and put into roles where they can be watched and where they can't harm others through their ineptitude.  Western Militaries are good at streaming people and using personnel as they are best suited. Mr. Vance was suited to being a publicity department chaperone for visitors. His military service is appreciated and is not dismissed.

3 hours ago, Yagoda said:

In the US, AGs aren't jurists.

 

Guess its clear now that you arent from the USA

jurist. noun. ju·rist ˈju̇r-ist. : an individual having a thorough knowledge of law.

5 minutes ago, mdr224 said:

This guy clearly wants to see the usa fail. Trump is his imaginary enemy. He actually has no feelings about it at all

   You win a Boris Badenov award for that amusing conclusion

1 minute ago, wwest5829 said:

jurist. noun. ju·rist ˈju̇r-ist. : an individual having a thorough knowledge of law.

I wouldnt say kamala has a thorough knowledge of anything

1 minute ago, Will B Good said:

 

Not quite the same as 31/2 years of blatant lies, encouraging an assault on the Capitol, false accusations of stuffing ballot boxes and false accusations of 'fixing' voting machines.

 

U.S. Democrats have challenged presidential election results in the past.

 

In the 2000 election between Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush. The election results in Florida were so close that it triggered a mandatory recount. The situation eventually led to a legal battle that reached the U.S. Supreme Court in the case *Bush v. Gore*. The Court's decision effectively ended the recount, giving Bush the victory. Gore accepted the ruling, though many Democrats were dissatisfied with the outcome.

Another example occurred after the 2004 election, where some Democrats in Congress challenged the results in Ohio, alleging voting irregularities. This challenge did not alter the outcome, as it was rejected by both the House and the Senate.

In 2016, some Democrats also raised concerns about potential interference in the election and considered challenging the results, but no formal challenge was pursued in Congress.

 

I am not just talking about challenges. I am talking about the media bias against republicans. (Trumps mouth gets a lot of his well deserved bias),  The mind set that if you agree with anything trump says you are far right, racist, misogynistic transphobic, homophobic and islamaphobic. As is widely seen here by the vast majority of posters that are anti trump, Of which you are part and parcel with your comments, The fact that the "insurrection" was so less violent then the BLM riots yet the media and the democrats play it  up as a "danger to democracy, the refusal to implement voter id laws. the statistically unlikely votes that appeared overnight for Biden. I could go on ad nauseum but I think you get the point. 

7 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

 

One of Harris' key accomplishments as attorney general came in 2012 when refused to accept the initial settlement  of the Banking industry's  mortgage foreclosure procedures. Her efforts in conjunction with several other state Attorney Generals (from states you would term "liberal", are what resulted in 40 states benefiting from the multi billion dollar settlement.   The deal provided relief to those affected by the bank practices, with the average eligible homeowner receiving $20,000 in mortgage aid. She had a role in making the case  and in vetting the legal arguments that allowed the settlement. She was the equivalent of corporate counsel to  one of the world's largest  multinational enterprises, the state of California.  VP Harris has a lengthy legal experience and is certainly better educated and more knowledgeable of US law than Trump.

 

 

 

Lol, what total nonsense. You obviously have zero idea how govenment lawyers work. The banking industry settlement you refer to was outsourced by all government legal agencies to top private US law firms who are the only ones with lawyers that have the expertise to negotiate on complex securitisation and mortgage litigation matters. Just as the banks involved would have used private banking lawyers, note, not "corporate" lawyers. You seriously think corporate lawyers negotiate banking matters like the mortgage foreclosure settlements?

 

To think that all 49 AGs who were involved in the matter somehow drafted and produced the settlement is laughable in the extreme. They would have been presented with drafts by the various teams of lawyers and after consultation would have had a very limited choice to make.

 

To imply that Kamala Harris has any expertise as a corporate lawyer is beyond laughable, to suggest she has banking law expertise is frankly drop the mic ignorant. Harris is a criminal lawyer. Do you not understand the difference? Do you think in the US criminal lawyers practice as corporate or banking lawyers?

 

You are completely clueless.

1 minute ago, mdr224 said:

I wouldnt say kamala has a thorough knowledge of anything

Yes, your personal opinion. I do think I will favor the opinions of the residents of California who voted her into office of AG.

1 minute ago, mdr224 said:

I wouldnt say kamala has a thorough knowledge of anything

 

I think you need to check with Russia  to get some better talking points. Your claim falls flat, because she received praise from fellow Attorney Generals and has a solid reputation in  the state where she practiced law.

Just now, wwest5829 said:

Yes, your personal opinion. I do think I will favor the opinions of the residents of California who voted her into office of AG.

Yes because as we all know the residents only vote based on a candidates expertise 

Just now, wwest5829 said:

Yes, your personal opinion. I do think I will favor the opinions of the residents of California who voted her into office of AG.

You mean san franciscos very large homeless population? Yes im sure they all have positive opinions about her

2 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

 

I think you need to check with Russia  to get some better talking points. Your claim falls flat, because she received praise from fellow Attorney Generals and has a solid reputation in  the state where she practiced law.

 

 

Lol, she practiced criminal law. Not banking law. Your claim she has expertise as a banking or corporate lawyer is absolutely laughable.

 

 

Edited September 3, 20241 yr by Cameroni

15 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Mission accomplished.

I lied not sure what your mission was. It failed. But thank you for proving your are not worth reading as you have nothing of value  to add to any conversation you respond to. 

1 minute ago, Patong2021 said:

 

I think you need to check with Russia  to get some better talking points. Your claim falls flat, because she received praise from fellow Attorney Generals and has a solid reputation in  the state where she practiced law.

All democrats have a solid reputation in commiefornia. Everyone there is just so satisfied with not being able to afford anything anymore

58 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Trump has published his book, which I won't read. Not at 99 <deleted> dollars.

 

OTOH, if Pence ever puts what happened into print, I'd love to read it.

 

IMO Pence does not get nearly enough credit for being faithful to his oath of office, and the Constitution.

do you need a load to pay for the book? 

1 minute ago, Chwooly said:

Yes because as we all know the residents only vote based on a candidates expertise 

Here we agree that,  the residents do not only “vote based on a candidates expertise”. Proof of that is supported by Trump being the Republican Party nominee as President of the USA.

2 minutes ago, Chwooly said:

I am not just talking about challenges. I am talking about the media bias against republicans. (Trumps mouth gets a lot of his well deserved bias),  The mind set that if you agree with anything trump says you are far right, racist, misogynistic transphobic, homophobic and islamaphobic. As is widely seen here by the vast majority of posters that are anti trump, Of which you are part and parcel with your comments, The fact that the "insurrection" was so less violent then the BLM riots yet the media and the democrats play it  up as a "danger to democracy, the refusal to implement voter id laws. the statistically unlikely votes that appeared overnight for Biden. I could go on ad nauseum but I think you get the point. 

 

You are  using the BLM events to justify  Trump's insurrection. The argument doesn't fly. Trump's motive was his personal gain, his attempt to  remain as President despite losing the election. The BLM events were a series of multiple events that followed the unlawful deaths of multiple Americans.  The argument's premise is  that "liberals" supported the  damages arising from the BLM protests and it is not true. Multiple  leaders came out to urge calm and restraint and to condemn any and all violence. What they did do was to understand why some people were upset and to express their understanding of the pain the protestors had at being  regularly shot down. We  just saw another recent  incident where a woman who called police for assistance was mistakenly shot in her own home.  There is a problem in the USA of  police officers being trigger happy.

4 minutes ago, mdr224 said:

All democrats have a solid reputation in commiefornia. Everyone there is just so satisfied with not being able to afford anything anymore

California is the state that provides the tax revenue that subsidizes  the mismanaged financially backward republican states like MS, AL, LA and ND. Perhaps Republicans should send a message to California and not take the billions of federal assistance  paid for by California taxes. I am sure that California residents would appreciate the tax reductions.

15 minutes ago, Chwooly said:

The fact that the "insurrection" was so less violent then the BLM riots yet the media and the democrats play it  up as a "danger to democracy,

 

That's an excellent point. 

 

Quite notable how the media failed to portray the post Floyd riots as a danger to democracy whereas the Capitol riots were played up that way.

 

In terms of mass participation and damage caused the post Floyed riots were far more violent and dangerous.

 

 

Edited September 3, 20241 yr by Cameroni

9 minutes ago, mdr224 said:

You mean san franciscos very large homeless population? Yes im sure they all have positive opinions about her

 

The California homeless as a group do not vote.

You just toss out whatever you think will stick, but it is quite literally so unfounded and baseless  as to cause one to question what your intent is.

 

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Your anger is getting the better of you too. Get help.

Karma is Karma …

Just now, Patong2021 said:

 

You are  using the BLM events to justify  Trump's insurrection. The argument doesn't fly. Trump's motive was his personal gain, his attempt to  remain as President despite losing the election. The BLM events were a series of multiple events that followed the unlawful deaths of multiple Americans.  The argument's premise is  that "liberals" supported the  damages arising from the BLM protests and it is not true. Multiple  leaders came out to urge calm and restraint and to condemn any and all violence. What they did do was to understand why some people were upset and to express their understanding of the pain the protestors had at being  regularly shot down. We  just saw another recent  incident where a woman who called police for assistance was mistakenly shot in her own home.  There is a problem in the USA of  police officers being trigger happy.

I am pointing out that there is a clear bias between the way the "Insurrection" has been portrayed and how the BLM riots are portrayed. Look at the lose of life and cost of damage from BLM vs the "Insurrection" and i am not talking about health related or suicides that followed after. Look at the total cost of the damages and the video clip of a burning building while the commenter is espousing a mostly peaceful demonstration. While I agree with Pence's and his refusal to do as Trump wanted. I don't agree that the election was truly fair and not tainted. 

 

I was excited when Manchin was being discussed as a potential candidate for president, Personally I don't want Trump or Harris but if I have to pick the lesser of 2 evils then I think Trump is will be better for my bank account. Yes I vote for my self interest. 

Just now, Chwooly said:

I am pointing out that there is a clear bias between the way the "Insurrection" has been portrayed and how the BLM riots are portrayed. Look at the lose of life and cost of damage from BLM vs the "Insurrection" and i am not talking about health related or suicides that followed after. Look at the total cost of the damages and the video clip of a burning building while the commenter is espousing a mostly peaceful demonstration. While I agree with Pence's and his refusal to do as Trump wanted. I don't agree that the election was truly fair and not tainted. 

 

I was excited when Manchin was being discussed as a potential candidate for president, Personally I don't want Trump or Harris but if I have to pick the lesser of 2 evils then I think Trump is will be better for my bank account. Yes I vote for my self interest. 

 

The point about the Floyd riots being far more destructive and having far wider participation is well made. 

 

 

Yet, the prosecution effort to go affter the pro-Floyd protestors was pitiful compared to the Capitol participants.

2 hours ago, mdr224 said:

talking to a liberal you wouldnt even know who their candidate is..theyre too busy talking about trump

A clear and present danger to my country.

7 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

A clear and present danger to my country.

An american who no longer lives here due to the countrys decline thinks they have an opinion that matters

17 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

That's an excellent point. 

 

Quite notable how the media failed to portray the post Floyd riots as a danger to democracy whereas the Capitol riots were played up that way.

 

In terms of mass participation and damage caused the post Floyed riots were far more violent and dangerous.

 

 

You obviously missed the bit where the insurrection was an attempt to overthrow an election, the post Floyd riots were not.

2 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

This man accusing anyone of horrible behavior is very rich indeed. He throws his people under the bus, the nanosecond they are no longer useful to him. He is desperate and flailing. 

 

At this point, if Trump and Vance went home, locked themselves up, and did not say anything, or appear again until the election, they would have a better chance of winning. Otherwise, they shoot themselves in the foot daily, as they are both horrendously poor candidates and campaigners. Vance really needs to avoid donut shops, and Trump really needs do avoid all contact with the military. They despise him, for many good reasons. 

 

As it stands now, I do not see them getting elected, thankfully. And watching them both melt down has been great fun. Anyone but Trump. 

 

From the NY Post, a Murdoch owner paper, and a conservative one. It would appear they are losing faith in Huge Don and Just Dull Vance. 

 

A warning to Donald Trump and JD Vance: Tread carefully when it comes to women, including Vice President Kamala Harris. All signs point to a tight race in November, and the GOP ticket is already behind with women: In five battleground states, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, Harris leads by 9 points or more with the ladies.

Closing that gap may be an uphill battle. Even if Trump were ahead, it would be foolish to ignore the power of women voters: About 7.4 million more women than men were registered to vote in 2022, according to the Center for American Women in Politics, and more women than men have voted in every presidential election since 1964.

 

Harris by at least 11 million votes. Trump is a broken record at this point, he's increasingly incoherent, semi senile, and he's definitely losing the plot. See ya Don. May you and your family never be heard from again after this humiliating upcoming election loss. And may you serve time in prison for the many crimes you have committed. 

 

 

 

Lost by 3 million popular votes in 2016, lost by 7 million popular votes in 2020. I am hopeful of a loss of over 10 million popular votes in 2024 but … I am very concerned about the manipulation of the call for not certifying the vote calling the election into question and the havoc that would ensue. Additionally, the Electoral College vote manipulation attempts that may be developed as it had been tried by Trump and his ilk before and we all witnessed in the now documented history.