No chance, I usually don’t care about American politics but I’m not gonna miss the chance to watch 2 geriatric fucks attempt to debate one another.
It was so much worse than I envisioned it to be though. Like one guy seemed to make up literally everything with insane claims that were delivered with confidence only rivaled by how stupid they were and the other sounded like his brain turned to soup if he spoke for more than 5 seconds and when not speaking he looked like a frog seeing a very tasty fly on the wall.
I really hope Europe can get our collective shit together and supply Ukraine once the US shits the bed there.
one guy seemed to make up literally everything with insane claims that were delivered with confidence only rivaled by how stupid they were
that’s exactly how he was_ when he was president from 2016-2020_. he tried to nuke a hurricane and buy greenland. his own party basically lets him say whatever dogshit he likes as a distraction while they engage in graft and tax evasion
Yeah no. Your choice has global impact. Sadly enough.
I mean, I follow the presidental race somewhat because it has global impact, but watching the debates is not worth my time, and I’m fairly certain it’s not worth anyone’s time, especially non-americans.
I came here to skip the debate and catch up with the jokes. But seems like the joke is the debate itself
Plus it’s unlikely to change anyone’s mind. At this point you’re either pro or anti Trump and you’ve had at least eight years to pick your side.
That whole attitude of picking sides is what got us in this mess to begin with
… Picking a side is literally what an election is.
A side as opposed to either side is how it should be. But don’t take my word for it, George Washington allegedly warned us of the potential perils of a two-party system on his deathbed but I’m unsure if that is common myth or actually true
George Washington eschewed political parties because he didn’t want to establish a precedent where his choice as first president set the standard everyone else had to conform to, and there’s a little irony in people holding him up as an example in that light more than 200 years later.
He, and the other founders largely, disliked political parties in their entirety, not just having some specific number of them.
They also built the system that enshrined the two party dichotomy as the only option, actively sought to ensure that the “right” people could override the will of the people if needed, and founded the parties they had previously argued against.
They are far from infallible bastions of correctness in this matter.
It’s what modern elections are, and maybe even all historical elections, though I’m not old enough to determine that. What elections should be is throwing your support behind someone that you think is going to be beneficial for everyone. I know that is idealistic, and unfortunately the current system makes that basically impossible, but Washington said that partisan politics would be the downfall of this country, and his words are playing out in front of us. I really wish we would throw the parties, and lobbyists, out and force candidates to run on policy and merit.
See, you’re talking partisan politics, I’m talking “you literally have to pick someone”. We’ve had these candidates before. You already know which one you’re going to vote for. You picked your side four years ago when you were asked the same question.
Beyond that though, there’s “parties” and then theirs “sides”. One side is xenophobic, homophobic and actively wishes harm on a lot of people. The other side doesn’t, for all their flaws.
There are more parties than there are sides in the past few elections.By saying you think you should vote for someone who will be good for everyone, you’ve picked a side. The side that doesn’t want to do good for only the “right” people, or make sure only the “right” people get hurt.
The only question is if you’ll vote for that side to win, or if you’ll let idealism or anger drive you to vote otherwise.I shall, once again, for the 6th time in my life, hold my nose and vote for the milquetoast candidate the DNC has foisted on us. I wish we had RCV so I could vote for someone good, like Bernie, or heck I’d almost take Vermin Supreme at this point.
Yeah crazy that people have to pick the fascist or not fascist side haha
They’re both fascists.
They’re both right wing, but moderate right wing bought by corporate interests isn’t the same as fascist. It’s trending towards fascism, sure, but it’s less likely to go on a killing spree.
bOth ARe tHe sAMe!!!
They are, if you’re older than 11
You have no idea what fascism means. Stop making yourself look dumb.
It’s obviously a common vernacular simplification from authoritarian with a broad definition. This is a commonplace and accepted vernacular in most modern western media based social media outlets.
Fascist can be liberal, they can also be conservative. Or communist. Or almost anything. More often fascists will lie and say they are more socialist than many of their policies would lead you to reasonably expect.
Grown ups are talking. Go play outside. You obviously need to touch grass, child.
It’s 50% a desire to stay informed and 50% sports entertainment
Your family is in our neighbourhood and in this domestic dispute I’m just wondering if I need to call the police or the abundance.
In America, you can’t call just one—you’ll still get police if you ask for an ambulance.
Source: am American, have tried calling for only an ambulance before.
We call an ambulance we get fire dept first responders, then an ambulance if you need it. Never got the police, and we have done it many times with my father in law with heart issues.
… And I live in Tulsa
Did they charge an extra $10k for the police?
Indeed, the person in the ambulance went bankrupt. I’m not even kidding.
I say this as an American: maybe start making friends with the other countries because we are not gonna be okay whatever happens.
I’m just wondering if I need to call the police or the ambulance
Both? One of these guys is a convicted felon turned robber baron and the other is a retirement home escapee who has lost the light in their eyes.
Yeah, you true. Get out the popcorn and watch USA go down either with a 3yo minded constant liar or a 80+yo laggard. And learn mandarin.
The 3yo minded liar is near enough 80 anyway.
Why are you scared of oranges?
There’s bloody stuff under the skin?
Because of the implication
This will be up there with 9/11 for worst things to happen to the country
Well, i would have gone for slavery or genocide, but downing a financial building is probably the same from a POV.
/s I’m just joking
At this point the only thing I care about are hordes of m1 abramses if putin crosses the border. I don’t have any other expectations or hopes.
Trump was somewhat ironically right about paying for it. Because if that’s the only thing that America can offer to the world then better name a price for your single trick.
America needs some perspective. You complain that your only choices are a doddering fool or a toxic narcissist who wants to actively destroy the nation.
Here in Canada we look at our options and think “America is so much better, I wish we had an option to vote for a doddering fool. All we have are narcissists”
No joke I wish we had a leader as good as Biden. The bar is so low that the devil is doing the limbo with it down in Hell.
No I would definitely vote for trudeau a 100 times over before Biden, and we have at least 3 choices in almost every riding. We don’t have to worry about gerrymandering and voters reform while unlikely is at least a topic mainstream politicians will tall about.
Comparing ourselves too much to the states is why canada is the mess it is, it’s still no contest with the states.
Trudeau over Biden?
Trudeau is importing the world’s problems in the name of propping up the real estate investor class (of which he is a member) and pumping up fake GDP numbers. GDP per capita is plummeting in Canada with excess immigration.
Singh is in his pocket, a waste of a vote. I was an NDP voter all my life, I’m done.
Polliviere is an absolute idiot who will ride a wave of hatred for Trudeau into office.
Voters in Canada have no power and no representation as all votes are whipped. Your MP is a seat filler. We have no ballot initiatives or direct democracy options that America has, and reform will never come.
Biden listens to people who know what they’re doing and stands out of the way… Passed legislation supporting workers and unions, energy infrastructure etc. meaning he’s both more left than Singh and more business-friendly than PP
Well your clearly not here in good faith so I’ll keep it brief.
Singh is in his pocket, a waste of a vote. I was an NDP voter all my life, I’m done.
Sorry can’t hear you over the sound of my dentists drill.
Polliviere is an absolute idiot who will ride a wave of hatred for Trudeau into office.
Worse than Biden, probably, worse than Trump no way.
Voters in Canada have no power and no representation as all votes are whipped. Your MP is a seat filler
No I live in a green riding.
No I’m serious, I’m here in SK and we’re trying to push Moe and his cronies out for the NDP this fall, and our biggest problem is the federal NDP damaging the brand by backing Trudeau. All we say all day is “The SK NDP is not affiliated with the federal party, we stand for working Canadians, vote Moe out”
If you think $500 for low income and seniors is anything other than a bone thrown to pacify the poor then Singh has pulled the wool over your eyes.
The requirement for “no access to insurance” absolutely torpedoes the entire thing. Private insurers need to fall, universal coverage is the only way. Dental is the Canadian equivalent to the entire USA health insurance racket.
Congrats on living in the one green riding, which does give you some power over your single seat party… Which ultimately holds no power at all in our broken system.
I’m sorry to say I voted Trudeau on the promise of electoral reform, which he then told us we didn’t want. I’m in a safe blue riding which means my vote is pointless, so I’m going full protest vote next time for the PPC 🤣 Max is laughable, especially his obsession with dairy supply management, but enough votes for “burn it down” will hopefully send a message.
British politics are funnier anyway.
I don’t get why Lord bucket head didnt get more votes
The crazy thing is everything up to this point was so much better. They’d show biden waiving at “nobody” and then they’d zoom out and there’s someone standing there. Or he’d say “president of Mexico” when he meant to say “president of Egypt”. But then last night was like nonstop fail. It’s the perfect nightmare scenario because now everyone can say “You shoulda seen it sooner!” but really, we couldn’t.
Sounds like an excuse.
What I mean is: it sounds like his handlers kept making excuses and you kept accepting them because you wanted to believe them.
I know, I’m frustrated too. I dismissed the Alex Jones Fox News crowd because they were known liars, they’d lied to us for decades, and this really did seem like standard conservative projection to deflect from their candidates’ obvious mental issues.
Hate to admit it. But the conservatives were right and we were wrong.
We’ve seen this before with Reagan. We took the military industrial complex to the next level. If history repeats with banks deregulated as they are now… It won’t matter one fucking bit, really. It’s not very important whom they choose to front their cons. No President can save us, or would want to. Our oppressor is not our savior.
No, plenty of nonpartisan and even liberal people were yelling this too. I had no illusions of Biden’s age.
America is not just two internet echo chambers… even if it feels like it right now.
I don’t see how what conservatives say has to do with reality.
Biden has been “senile” and “too old” for years now, during which time we’ve had a functioning Biden administration.
The Trump admin was limp, chronically understaffed, weak, ineffectual. That’s what they’re pretending is better than Biden. Conservatives don’t even care about senility so if you hear them rag on Biden and think they’re right, you’re not understanding what they’re really saying.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking the 1st trump term will be like the second if he wins. This time people are prepared and have a playbook to do as much damage as possible. Google project 2025.
Hey Everyone! That was just a funny joke, haha parody…you know how we do! Real debate next month haha
Im in the backyard from your family’s lot, remember?
deleted by creator
Is it the official French stance to omit the Oxford comma?
Yes,
Correct, no comma before the last element if it is preceded by a conjunction (e.g. “et”, that is “and” in English) in French
That’s the topic of the next debate.
It’s only an Oxford comma if it’s from the region of Oxford. Otherwise it’s just sparkling interpunction.
Cambridge, Massachusetts has entered the chat, with a classical English accent.
I mean, reading that sentence, it certainly wouldn’t surprise me if they omitted it just to spite the British.
just to spite the British
A fine justification, no matter the situation
WE 👏STAN👏BOM-👏PARD👏
The thing that’s pissing me off though is that the centrist party decided it would rather demonize the left than the alt right, I suppose they know they already lost and are trying to get as many votes off of those they know might vote for them (some socialists).
deleted by creator
Centerists will always attack the left rather than the right. They are actually right wingers that don’t want the social stigma that goes with admitting that you’re right wing. Once the progressives have been killed off by the right wing, the liberals will take the mask off.
The lot of them are cowards and the left is a whole lot less scary than the right, since we don’t go on random killing sprees frequently.
The vibes I get from the French left in social media remind me of the days when Podemos (in Spain) was soaring. It gives me a bit of hope. Good luck.
I’ll just leave this here… :’-)
Well if you care so much how come you’re not doing anything about it?? We all know what happens when America cares about someone else’s elections…
Add to this one another map of past CIA-backed coups and despair.
Honestly that’s something I never learned about until I was like, 23, 24. Still know bugger all about it and that’s fucked. Do you know any good resources where I can learn about this stuff?
You could start by reading about the School of the Americas, Operation Condor and Operation Gladio. See how the USA treats its “friends”.
Read about cointelpro and see how it treats its citizens. Some tactics are still in use today.
There’s a Wikipedia article on US interventions but it misses some afaik.
For a fun and light read I’d start with Wikipedia entry on the attempts on the life of Fidel Castro.
For chronological read I’d start with Iran then Latin America, Wikipedia as well. Don’t skip the chapter where they associated themselves with drug lords that sent drugs to US as a way to finance anti communist operations in Central America. I think that was Nicaragua.
Wilson, and to a lesser extent Monroe are the presidents that caused those, with Wilsonian Military Doctrine, and The Monroe Doctrine, specifically so perhaps start there.
And there’s quite a few missing!
The one on Greenland, for example
And the surveillance station in the middle of Australia (pine gap)
That BoyBoy video is so funny
What? there’s nothing important in Pine Gap.
That’s what they want you to think
Yeah I heard Australia has some issues with gaps between pine trees, a certain boyboy told me ;)
nice try DoD
if we are talking about surveillance theres the internet surveillance apparatus too.
Even the Pentagon doesn’t know where they are!
Nope, you can’t stand there for generations going “LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!” Then get shitty when we do, we want to watch you drive that burning bus into the the ocean.
We’re literally the family with the drunk uncle who’s really fun at parties but now the alcoholism has caught up and he just gets sad and angry when he gets drunk.
We’re Amy Winehouse/Lindsay Lohan/Britney Spears. We love(d) the limelight, but it’s not so great when we’re spiraling downward.
Elvis Presley. We’re currently in the fat Vegas years. We should probably stay away from submarine sandwiches, and bathtubs.
what is americas death on the toilet going to be?
An absolute shitshow
It’s just a face, and doesn’t usually represent the people.
Prez has little power when compared to most world leaders. Their lead is more of a cultural one.
So to say, it’s really not so violently serious
I wish Prez had been real, and not just a Sandman president.
I will keep repeating this, Biden will be the reason Trump gets reelected. If he loves his country he needs to leave right fucking now. Democrats like him and Clinton are addicted to power. Bernie Sanders could have beaten Trump in both election but the democrats circles of power made sure to get the candidate they wanted. Old fool.
How about we pick someone who vaguely approaches the average age of an American adult. There’s a ton - Buttigieg, AOC, I dunno even Kamala would be a million times better. Literally anybody under the age of 70. Why is that so hard to do?
Bernie ain’t winning shit at a national level
At this point, I’m convinced the Democrats are purposely throwing the election.
It’s the usual catch - the leader of the losing side doesn’t get the post, but keeps power of his faction.
While if that leader is no longer a leader, their personal power would be less even if the faction wins.
Western Roman Empire had a similar story with Stilicho’s conviction and execution. The empire loses, but those who ate him get some power.
You keep repeating it because a false dichotomy, that you must choose between a D or R, prevents you from accepting that the lesser evil is, in fact, evil. So, you’re stuck on stupid and not asking questions. This should help:
The Democrats already, quite predictably, ignored the outcome of their primary to nominate Clinton. They’re not going to do a fucking thing that doesn’t make a corporate donor money. All of Sanders proposals took from corporations to provide for humans. He never stood a chance of being nominated as a Democrat and he damned well knew it. If we give him the benefit of the doubt then his goal was education. If not, he rallied for Democrats to avoid the rise of a Labor Party during a critical time in history.
Sanders wouldn’t stand a chance. Too many moderate Democrats would be terrified of the scary socialist madman.
“The scary socialist madman” accompanied by the Democratic Party apparatus? A presidential candidate Sanders along with a moderate liberal VP would have gotten both the traditional Democratic vote (as long as the party collaborated with him, rather than giving him the Corbyn treatment, which I don’t trust liberals not to do) and a considerable chunk of the electorate who doesn’t feel represented by either party. The day you guys understand that you don’t have to fight the Republicans in traditional terms, but rather, to change the coordinates of the fight, you’ll force Republicans to choose between evolving or getting buried. But the real problem by this point is whether it is too late.
Most of this country is centrist, so no unfortunately sanders would have lost to trump.
Can you guys just put obama back in? I would unironically say thanks. It would be poetic.
No. Trust me, this would be amazing but he cannot legally run again :(
No, there’s an amendment in our consimtituion that says a president can only be in office for two terms total. The only president who evaded this was FDR and he’s still villainized to this day.
Actually. I’m pretty sure hes the reason that amendment got passed.
Before FDR it was just a tradition, started by George Washington. Personally I think FDR deserves a pass, he got us out of the great depression and through WW2, it would have been hard to have a leadership change in the midst of that turmoil.
Totally agree. But imagine a 4-term Obamna presidency, with the orange avatar of conservative rage building in strength and gathering malice for 16 years instead of 8.
I am pro term limits, but you’re kinda making a good counter point. Eight more years of Obama instead of Trump and Biden… Doesn’t seem that bad. The conservatives went ballistic anyway, at least we’d have reproductive rights and better healthcare. I’m certain Obama would have been a lot better at managing COVID and the BLM protests. He was pro ceasefire in Gaza way before Biden too. Idk, for all his flaws, Obama seems better than what we got in his place.
I would have loved it too. But the backlash would be intense
Yeah there’s still a few doctors without borders hospitals he hasn’t bombed yet.
lol at thinking Americans are mostly centrists…
Lol at thinking Americans lean hard left or right
Most Americans I know think they’re centrists, even if they support either major party… I’m an American so I know a few Americans lol
Maybe you’re right but too many of us think the opposite. I would much rather a younger more progressive candidate but Joe Biden has a track record of beating Trump. Biden has done a lot of good things in his first term that I’d want to continue. Even where he hasn’t gone nearly far enough or balanced bad with good, it may be necessary to appeal to the undecideds in the middle. Biden is the only one who can overcome the Trump personality cult
If a big complaint is age, how is that a plus for Sanders? I’m sorry but he missed his chance and now is solidly in “too old for this shit” territory
A track record of beating trump?
Something about the statistical validity of a sample size of one.
People keep saying Bernie could have won, but he didn’t beat Clinton.
Sanders and Clinton didn’t play on a level field.
Like what? Did she get votes for him thrown out?
People have been saying for years that she had an advantage and so it wasn’t fair, but those advantages seem to ignore that more people voted for her.
He was an independent running as a Democrat, and then claiming it’s unfair when the Democratic party was more aligned with the person who had always been a Democrat.
those advantages seem to ignore that more people voted for her.
How can that be ignored it is the conclusion of the argument. Those advantages meant more people voted for her.
He was an independent running as a Democrat,
Listen dear, all politicians who want to be president are independents running as Democrats/Republicans.
claiming it’s unfair when the Democratic party was more aligned with the person who had always been a Democrat.
The whole point of a primary is to determine who the democratic party is more aligned with. It is unfair to determine that in advance.
So what were the advantages? The usual one I hear listed is superdelegates, which doesn’t matter if more people voted for the winner, or that they didn’t proactively inform his campaign about funding tricks that the Clinton campaign already knew about.
Are you saying that Clinton was an independent who just happened to align with the party for her entire political career?
I’m not sure you know how political affiliation or “people” work. Being a member of the party for decades vs being a member for months matters. Those are called “connections”, and it’s how most politicians get stuff done: by knowing people and how to talk to them.
The point of a primary is to determine who the candidate is, not who the party is more aligned with. Party leadership will almost always be more aligned with the person who has been a member longer, particularly when that person has been a member of part leadership themselves. It’s how people work. You prefer a person you’ve known and worked with for a long time over a person who just showed up to use your organization, and by extension you, for their own goals.
We have rules to make sure that those unavoidable human preferences don’t make it unfair.The Obama campaign is a good example. He didn’t have the connections that Clinton did, so party leadership favored her. Once they actually voted, he got more so leadership alignment didn’t matter and he was the candidate. He then worked to develop those connections so that he and the party were better aligned and work together better, and he won. Yay!
So what rules did they break for Clinton? What advantages did she have over Sanders that she didn’t have over Obama?
Which of those advantages weren’t just "new people to the party didn’t know tools the party made available?”So what were the advantages?
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic Party, was found to have sent an email during the primary election saying Mr Sanders “would not be president”
There were six primaries where ties were decided by the flip of a coin — and Clinton won every single one. The odds of that happening are 1 in 64, or less than 2 percent
The usual one I hear listed is superdelegates, which doesn’t matter if more people voted for the winner,
superdelegates system favoured Clinton by pre-announcing their support, giving Clinton a massive early lead.
or that they didn’t proactively inform his campaign about funding tricks that the Clinton campaign already knew about.
Clinton bought the DNC by paying off the debt created after Obama.
Are you saying that Clinton was an independent who just happened to align with the party for her entire political career?
I’m saying she doesn’t align and would happily run as an independent if she thought she would be elected.
The point of a primary is to determine who the candidate is, not who the party is more aligned with.
“The party” is the people who vote in the primary.
Party leadership will almost always be more aligned with the person who has been a member longer, particularly when that person has been a member of part leadership themselves.
Party leadership is not the party.
It’s how people work. You prefer a person you’ve known and worked with for a long time over a person who just showed up to use your organization, and by extension you, for their own goals.
Exactly. This is why the primaries were rigged in Clinton’s favor and Sanders and his supporters were right to claim unfairness.
We have rules to make sure that those unavoidable human preferences don’t make it unfair.
Those rules were broken. Debbie Wasserman Schultz has to resign.
The Obama campaign is a good example.
Of fairness (or a super strong candidate beating stacked odds).
So what rules did they break for Clinton?
- Campaign finance
- Debate questions
- Impartiality
What advantages did she have over Sanders that she didn’t have over Obama?
I haven’t researched how unfair Obama had it so I can’t compare.
Which of those advantages weren’t just "new people to the party didn’t know tools the party made available?”
Hilarious you refer to a 76 year old career politician like Sanders as a new person.
Quoting a phrase from an internal email out of context makes you seem disingenuous. The emails that were stolen show people being mean, but it also shows that they were consistently not rigging anything. Or does someone making a shitty suggestion and then a higher ranking member of the party saying “no” not fit the narrative your drawing? Or that the only time they talked about financial schemes was after the Sanders campaign alleged misconduct?
In context, Sanders told CNN that if he was elected, she would no longer be the chair person. The internal comment was “this is a silly story. Sanders isn’t going to be president” at a time where he was already loosing.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz has to resign.
She did. Eight years ago.
Tldr, party leadership preferred Clinton over Obama. Turns out that preference without misconduct doesn’t have much impact.
you refer to a 76 year old career politician like Sanders as a new person.
Oh please. It’s even in the bit that you quoted: new to the party. I act like he was new to the party because he was, and his campaign was run by people who didn’t know the party structures. When their inexperience with the party tools led to them not taking advantage of them, they cried misconduct for the other campaigns knowing about them.
