Sabrefan1 Posted May 24 Share Posted May 24 Just now, RupertKBD said: I get what you're saying, but I think it's an extreme example. I think the US government should have a pretty good handle on who has been paying taxes and for how long. I suppose for me, it comes down to the trust factor. Once one party abuses it, the other party will follow suit. That's always how it goes. I trust neither party to do what's right for the citizens here. They're going to do what's advantageous for their parties and let the rest of the country deal with the mess they create. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted May 24 Share Posted May 24 Just now, RupertKBD said: Sure. Why not? What actual danger is there in that? AS I said earlier, I work with several people who are working towards PR, but are not yet citizens. I'm totally fine with them being allowed to vote and frankly I can't see why some are so afraid of the idea. because you're degrading the idea of what citizenship means. Those may be great people you are working with, but they haven't earned it yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted May 24 Share Posted May 24 Just now, Sabrefan1 said: I suppose for me, it comes down to the trust factor. Once one party abuses it, the other party will follow suit. That's always how it goes. I trust neither party to do what's right for the citizens here. They're going to do what's advantageous for their parties and let the rest of the country deal with the mess they create. Fair point, but I think it's up for debate as to what's best for the country. I feel like one of your parties likes it best when as few people as possible are allowed to vote, while the other takes the opposite view. I come down firmly on that side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrefan1 Posted May 24 Share Posted May 24 2 minutes ago, RupertKBD said: Fair point, but I think it's up for debate as to what's best for the country. I feel like one of your parties likes it best when as few people as possible are allowed to vote, while the other takes the opposite view. I come down firmly on that side. If it were up to either party, they'd have jobs for life. If polls started coming out saying that more than 50% of those potential voters were more likely to vote conservative, I have no doubt that party viewpoints would switch. Just like with the redistricting issues that come up often. Both parties play that stupid game in the states that they control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted May 24 Share Posted May 24 20 minutes ago, RupertKBD said: Sure. Why not? What actual danger is there in that? AS I said earlier, I work with several people who are working towards PR, but are not yet citizens. I'm totally fine with them being allowed to vote and frankly I can't see why some are so afraid of the idea. What's to stop someone like Putin flooding a country with bad actors who can then vote? Many citizens are stuck here if the outcomes of an elective is truly awful. Permanent residents are able to go back home as an option. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted May 24 Share Posted May 24 1 minute ago, King Heffy said: What's to stop someone like Putin flooding a country with bad actors who can then vote? Many citizens are stuck here if the outcomes of an elective is truly awful. Permanent residents are able to go back home as an option. They would have to be living, working and paying taxes....I don't see how Putin could pull that off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted May 24 Share Posted May 24 25 minutes ago, Sabrefan1 said: If polls started coming out saying that more than 50% of those potential voters were more likely to vote conservative, I have no doubt that party viewpoints would switch. bingo. How about we not play with things like voting, just because one party thinks it'll get more votes from non-citizens. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted May 24 Share Posted May 24 A new contender for Trump's running mate.... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-tom-cotton-vice-president-2024-b2551073.html Quote Former president Donald Trump is reportedly considering Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton to be the Republican nominee for vice president in this year’s general election, a move that could outrage some Democrats but would bring an experienced, low-drama personality onto the GOP ticket. According to The New York Times, Mr Trump began discussing Mr Cotton as a vice presidential contender in recent weeks, adding to a mix of candidates that include three other Republicans from the upper chamber: Marco Rubio of Florida, Tim Scott of South Carolina and Ohio’s JD Vance. Mr Trump has also discussed North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum and former surgeon turned Housing and Urban Development secretary Ben Carson. Now....I have to confess that I don't really GAF who Hair Gropenfuhrer picks....I really just wanted the opportunity to say that Trump is out of his Cotton picking mind.... 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 (edited) 10 hours ago, Sabrefan1 said: I suppose for me, it comes down to the trust factor. Once one party abuses it, the other party will follow suit. That's always how it goes. I trust neither party to do what's right for the citizens here. They're going to do what's advantageous for their parties and let the rest of the country deal with the mess they create. If you're talking about the long-term, then sure. Parties could easily become power hungry over time. I worry about that with the NDP in BC for example. It's always important for parties to have to look over their shoulder so that they don't get too cocky. However, if you're talking this point in time, I think it's very clear the Republicans are the ones power hungry mostly because of the actions we're seeing in terms of trying to suppress voters in their favour. And sure, you could look at it sinisterly that the Democrats are power hungry too. A win for them at this point is when the vote is more fair; therefore, it's in their best interest to be fair; however, should that really change who the more important party is in the short term for keeping democracy? If one of the party's best interests align with the best interests of the general population, should we really just ignore that or accept that as a good thing for the short term? You don't have to like either party in the end, just don't mistaken being skeptical for being ignorant of the actual situations going on in the short term and what's going to be more important for the US at this point in time. Edited May 25 by The Lock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 3 hours ago, RupertKBD said: A new contender for Trump's running mate.... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-tom-cotton-vice-president-2024-b2551073.html Now....I have to confess that I don't really GAF who Hair Gropenfuhrer picks....I really just wanted the opportunity to say that Trump is out of his Cotton picking mind.... Trump is a piece of trash. Only a moran would vote for this orange ass clown. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrefan1 Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 1 minute ago, The Lock said: If you're talking about the long-term, then sure. Parties could easily become power hungry over time. I worry about that with the NDP in BC for example. It's always important for parties to have to look over their shoulder so that they don't get too cocky. However, if you're talking this point in time, I think it's very clear the Republicans are the ones power hungry mostly because of the actions we're seeing in terms of trying to suppress voters in their favour. And sure, you could look at it sinisterly that the Democrats are power hungry too. A win for them at this point is when the vote is more fair; therefore, it's in their best interest to be fair; however, should that really change who the more important party is in the short term for keeping democracy? If one of the party's best interests align with the best interests of the general population, should we really just ignore that or accept that as a good thing for the short term? You and I have a disconnect that won't let us agree. I don't look at either the Democrats or the Republicans as the "good guys". If either party were to truly hold all of the cards, the US would quickly become a miserable place. The Democrats are far from innocent in the ongoing dismantling of America's middle class for instance. Don't get me wrong though, the Conservatives taking the "asshole" position on just about every issue pisses me off more than just about anything the Democrats do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewbieCanuckFan Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 5 minutes ago, Sabrefan1 said: You and I have a disconnect that won't let us agree. I don't look at either the Democrats or the Republicans as the "good guys". If either party were to truly hold all of the cards, the US would quickly become a miserable place. The Democrats are far from innocent in the ongoing dismantling of America's middle class for instance. Don't get me wrong though, the Conservatives taking the "asshole" position on just about every issue pisses me off more than just about anything the Democrats do. In a nutshell, Sabrefan1 view of the two party system is (and we essentially have it in BC provincial politics): 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Sabrefan1 said: You and I have a disconnect that won't let us agree. I don't look at either the Democrats or the Republicans as the "good guys". If either party were to truly hold all of the cards, the US would quickly become a miserable place. The Democrats are far from innocent in the ongoing dismantling of America's middle class for instance. Don't get me wrong though, the Conservatives taking the "asshole" position on just about every issue pisses me off more than just about anything the Democrats do. I'm not saying you have to look at anyone as the "good guys". I'm just saying there's a short term stance and a long term stance. You seem to be focused on the long term rather than the short term. Right now, I see the Conservative being, as you said, the assholes, and the Democrats as the only way out of this issue. It doesn't even mean I have to like the Democrats. It means it's the current option if you don't want the US to sink further into disarray. You seem adamant on thinking everyone for the democrats are thinking they're the good guys when often times it's more about what's going to keep the US as a democracy. Simply put, this isn't the time to think of every party as the "bad guys". Do you want a democracy (maybe not even a good democracy but at least it's a democracy) or do you want Trump? Those are your options whether you like it or not. Edited May 25 by The Lock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrefan1 Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 54 minutes ago, The Lock said: I'm not saying you have to look at anyone as the "good guys". I'm just saying there's a short term stance and a long term stance. You seem to be focused on the long term rather than the short term. I looked at mostly the short term when I was younger and eventually learned that you need to look down the road as well and make short term decisions accordingly. I spent a month short of a decade in the Southwest US until I came to that realization and moved back home to Buffalo. Quote Right now, I see the Conservative being, as you said, the assholes, and the Democrats as the only way out of this issue. It doesn't even mean I have to like the Democrats. It means it's the current option if you don't want the US to sink further into disarray. The country is in disarray with Biden as president. He's not a strong leader. There is an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with the Democrats in this country and the numbers are showing it. I was surprised to see 25k people show up to a Trump rally in the middle of the very liberal Bronx. At first I figured most had to be from Long Island, but there were a fair amount of people there who said that they were from right there. The Democrats are even losing a good chunk of the black vote and they've been slowly losing the Latino vote as well. Quote You seem adamant on thinking everyone for the democrats are thinking they're the good guys when often times it's more about what's going to keep the US as a democracy. A few months ago in this very thread there were people arguing that the Democrats are indeed the "good guys". The good vs. evil dichotomy is a major theme on social media. Quote Simply put, this isn't the time to think of every party as the "bad guys". Do you want a democracy (maybe not even a good democracy but at least it's a democracy) or do you want Trump? Those are your options whether you like it or not. Trump won't be as powerful as everybody here believes he will be. He'd already be going in limping if he wins. Add to that, that he would be a 2nd term president who would be working with (hopefully) a split Congress, and he would only be able to throw out executive orders which will be challenged and slowed down in the courts. Trump would only be effective until the lame duck part of his 2nd term. After about 2 1/2 years, his party will start to rally around a new guy in order to continue holding the White House and he will begin to see his people move on. The Republicans are only rallying around Trump because they have no other choice. Once he becomes a lame duck, they'll be ready and eager to toss him aside 18 months later. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spring Salmon Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 2 hours ago, Alflives said: Trump is a piece of trash. Only a moran would vote for this orange ass clown. You look pretty orange yourself in your picture..... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duodenum Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 12 hours ago, Sabrefan1 said: I looked at mostly the short term when I was younger and eventually learned that you need to look down the road as well and make short term decisions accordingly. I spent a month short of a decade in the Southwest US until I came to that realization and moved back home to Buffalo. The country is in disarray with Biden as president. He's not a strong leader. There is an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with the Democrats in this country and the numbers are showing it. I was surprised to see 25k people show up to a Trump rally in the middle of the very liberal Bronx. At first I figured most had to be from Long Island, but there were a fair amount of people there who said that they were from right there. The Democrats are even losing a good chunk of the black vote and they've been slowly losing the Latino vote as well. A few months ago in this very thread there were people arguing that the Democrats are indeed the "good guys". The good vs. evil dichotomy is a major theme on social media. Trump won't be as powerful as everybody here believes he will be. He'd already be going in limping if he wins. Add to that, that he would be a 2nd term president who would be working with (hopefully) a split Congress, and he would only be able to throw out executive orders which will be challenged and slowed down in the courts. Trump would only be effective until the lame duck part of his 2nd term. After about 2 1/2 years, his party will start to rally around a new guy in order to continue holding the White House and he will begin to see his people move on. The Republicans are only rallying around Trump because they have no other choice. Once he becomes a lame duck, they'll be ready and eager to toss him aside 18 months later. There's photos that show less than 2000 people showed up to the rally. Trump's had quite a bit of difficulty matching his previous rally sizes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrefan1 Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 (edited) 55 minutes ago, Duodenum said: There's photos that show less than 2000 people showed up to the rally. Trump's had quite a bit of difficulty matching his previous rally sizes. I saw the picture one traveling around on X. It was a still frame of a chopper video taken 7 hours before Trump arrived. MSNBC has been re-showing the same frame but with the original time stamp on the bottom right missing. I wasn't there of course but I do know that gatherings in NY, especially NYC have a limit put on them and the Trump people always exaggerate/lie. I only today learned that the 25k estimate was theirs. Even if the cops allowed 5k-10k people of all colours from mostly the Bronx to show up, that's still surprising. This is the same place that AOC represents. It's very very liberal leaning. The Democrats are losing people of color. I watched some of the CNN and MSNBC interviews on YouTube and the people interviewed said that their ever day lives are worse now than before Biden became president. The funny thing with Trump not being able to hold his large rally's anymore is that it's a self-inflicted wound. He screwed over too many municipalities and stiffed them on reimbursements and now nobody will let him even attempt to hold a rally, except for surprisingly/apparently NYC. That and I'm not so sure that he could still fill arenas anywhere other than in the deep red states. Even my brother, who was once enamored with Trump, was complaining to me on the phone the other day that he's upset that his only 2 choices are Trump and Biden. Edited May 25 by Sabrefan1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewbieCanuckFan Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 13 hours ago, Sabrefan1 said: The country is in disarray with Biden as president. He's not a strong leader. There is an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with the Democrats in this country and the numbers are showing it. He's like the "Nickel Defense" in football terms. I doubt he'd get anywhere the support from Democrat higher ups if Dotard wasn't the other guy running. It'll be interesting the matchups once cholestoral takes its course on Herr VonSh*tsHisPants. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 Their seem to be conflicting accounts if the size of the rally. I've seen estimates of 25k and 3.5k, which is s pretty big difference. One CNN reporter said she was "surprised" by the amount of people, although there were no numbers given in the report... I'm just wondering if we actually should be surprised. Even a deep Blue city like New York isn't a monolith, so is it really that hard to believe Trump could draw 25,000 people in a city of over 8 million? He draws crowds more than double that much in some Purple states... In the end, these rallies are meaningless really. They don't move the needle on anyone's voting preference....all they do is make Orange Julius Caesar feel good about himself... 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrefan1 Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 47 minutes ago, RupertKBD said: Their seem to be conflicting accounts if the size of the rally. I've seen estimates of 25k and 3.5k, which is s pretty big difference. One CNN reporter said she was "surprised" by the amount of people, although there were no numbers given in the report... I'm just wondering if we actually should be surprised. Even a deep Blue city like New York isn't a monolith, so is it really that hard to believe Trump could draw 25,000 people in a city of over 8 million? He draws crowds more than double that much in some Purple states... In the end, these rallies are meaningless really. They don't move the needle on anyone's voting preference....all they do is make Orange Julius Caesar feel good about himself... I now doubt it was 25k. Mostly because Trump's team has always exaggerated about his crowds. After learning this morning that was their number, I did more thinking on it. NYC would put a limit on the gathering, but it would be enforced by the police who are staunchly pro-Trump so they wouldn't be too strict. I figure a tract/portion of a NYC park could fit up to 10k. So, depending on what fire and police allow, they'd let likely less than that. So I figure somewhere between 5k-10k. CNN and that local ABC news chopper did show the winding line of people trying to get in hours early. Still doesn't counter the fact that he's very limited on where he can hold his rallies because of how he stiffed and screwed over so many of those cities and venues in regards to reimbursement of costs in 2016. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 Sounds like a certain former POTUS is getting a bit nervous..... https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/legal-expense-legal-expense-trump-flips-out-overnight-about-his-hush-money-trial/ar-BB1n2he6?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=5c706e4d547243adb8f26449b53cf816&ei=16 Quote In the wee hours of Saturday morning, Donald Trump went on a multi-post tirade over his Manhattan hush money trial on his Truth Social platform, complaining that he is being unjustly persecuted. Over a period of several hours, the embattled Trump attacked Judge Juan Merchan, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and President Joe Biden for his most pressing legal woes as he faces 34 felony counts related to hiding payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels in an effort to keep her quiet before the 2016 election. According to the former president's late-night posting frenzy, the payments to former attorney Michela Cohen -- who asserts he was passing along the money to Daniels — were "legal expenses." Trump kicked off his Truth Social posts with, "LEGAL EXPENSE = LEGAL EXPENSE!!!" before adding moments later, "Let’s put the President in jail for 150 years because a LEGAL EXPENSE to a lawyer was called, by a bookkeeper, a LEGAL EXPENSE to a lawyer! What else could you call it. Crooked Joe Biden Witch Hunt. Election Interference. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!" In that vein, he continued, "I HAVE A GREAT CASE, BUT WITH A RIGGED AND CONFLICTED JUDGE. HISTORY PROVES, HOWEVER, THAT I WOULD BE FAR BETTER OFF WITH A BAD CASE AND A GREAT, FAIR, AND HONEST JUDGE!!!" Not content with that, an hour later he posted, "The City of New York’s D.A., Alvin Bragg, is trying to prosecute a Federal case, which cannot be done, and where there is NO CRIME, that has been turned down by everyone, including the Federal Elections Commission, SDNY, the D.A.’s Office, and Bragg himself - Until I announced that I was running for President. This case could have been brought 7 years ago, but wasn’t. It is another Crooked Joe Biden Election Interference Hoax!" That was followed by a post another hour later citing the Wall Street Journal — without a link — where the former president wrote, "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL - OPINION. ALVIN BRAGG HASN’T PROVED HIS CASE IN THE TRUMP TRIAL. THE EVIDENCE SHOWS WHY THE CHARGES SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN BROUGHT. New York Prosecutors rested their hush-money case against Donald Trump this week, but after 20 days in Court, and a trial transcript of 4000 pages, the missing piece is still missing. The question is whether Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg presented the evidence necessary for a conviction, and if we were in the jury room, we’d say NO." FTR, the WSJ article does exist, but they didn't use allcaps when stating their opinion.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duodenum Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 (edited) 1 hour ago, Sabrefan1 said: I saw the picture one traveling around on X. It was a still frame of a chopper video taken 7 hours before Trump arrived. MSNBC has been re-showing the same frame but with the original time stamp on the bottom right missing. I wasn't there of course but I do know that gatherings in NY, especially NYC have a limit put on them and the Trump people always exaggerate/lie. I only today learned that the 25k estimate was theirs. Even if the cops allowed 5k-10k people of all colours from mostly the Bronx to show up, that's still surprising. This is the same place that AOC represents. It's very very liberal leaning. The Democrats are losing people of color. I watched some of the CNN and MSNBC interviews on YouTube and the people interviewed said that their ever day lives are worse now than before Biden became president. The funny thing with Trump not being able to hold his large rally's anymore is that it's a self-inflicted wound. He screwed over too many municipalities and stiffed them on reimbursements and now nobody will let him even attempt to hold a rally, except for surprisingly/apparently NYC. That and I'm not so sure that he could still fill arenas anywhere other than in the deep red states. Even my brother, who was once enamored with Trump, was complaining to me on the phone the other day that he's upset that his only 2 choices are Trump and Biden. Trump is visible on stage in the photo. I think they got a permit for 7000 total but didn't make it to that mark. They also sold roughly 3400 tickets? Edited May 25 by Duodenum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrefan1 Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 Washington Post article about something I posted on here a while back. More people are identifying as Republicans and less are identifying as Democrats. The percentages are just about even between the parties now. The US populace is deeply unhappy with the Democrats. I'm not a fan of either side having control of both houses of Congress if they also have the presidency, so hopefully the Democrats can manage to keep control of one house if Trump is re-elected. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/more-voters-are-identifying-as-republicans-that-could-bode-ill-for-democrats-in-november/ar-BB1n2n5I?ocid=msedgdhp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrefan1 Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Duodenum said: Trump is visible on stage in the photo. I think they got a permit for 7000 total but didn't make it to that mark. I'm not going to argue it, because I don't care either way. The local ABC photo on X that I've seen is taken from a ways up. Like I said, after giving it more thought after learning the original estimate came from his team which always exaggerates\lies about his crowds, my best guess is between 5k-10k, with it likely being much closer to 5k being realistic considering the city would limit gathering sizes for safety purposes. Edited May 25 by Sabrefan1 I weirdly sliced up the second sentence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBH1926 Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 (edited) Trump likes to exaggerate number of people at his rallies, just like guys like to exaggerate size of their peckers. He got 15% of votes in Bronx whose population is around 8% white, so there are Latinos, Asians and Blacks that voted for him. Size of rallies are irrelevant anyways, usually hardcore political followers go to these rallies. I voted in every election that I was eligible to vote in, never been to a really or a meeting in my life. Edited May 25 by CBH1926 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.