COMMUNITY United States Politics Thread: Trump's Second Term

Also Kamala is popular. You don't get 75M votes if you're not. Even if a lot are voting against trump lol

Not saying she could win if she runs again or that they should prop her up for 2028. Just saying she is popular. That statement was silly

I don't know. I think you're selling the "a lot are voting against trump" part short. A lot of people knew how terrible things would be if Trump got re-elected and were going to vote against him no matter who was the Dem candidate. I don't think you can just discount that.
 
I don't know. I think you're selling the "a lot are voting against trump" part short. A lot of people knew how terrible things would be if Trump got re-elected and were going to vote against him no matter who was the Dem candidate. I don't think you can just discount that.
It was 75M. IIRC her campaign tours were huge. I remember them always making fun of the comparison of trump. If they didn't like her and were voting for her in spite of trump then don't you think she'd have a poor campaign?

If you're going to vote for her because you're voting against trump then you'd probably stay home and just ignore everything until you can cast your vote for her

Sure some part of that million was people voting against trump but it's difficult to believe the majority wasn't voting for her
 
It was 75M. IIRC her campaign tours were huge. I remember them always making fun of the comparison of trump. If they didn't like her and were voting for her in spite of trump then don't you think she'd have a poor campaign?

If you're going to vote for her because you're voting against trump then you'd probably stay home and just ignore everything until you can cast your vote for her

Sure some part of that million was people voting against trump but it's difficult to believe the majority wasn't voting for her

I don't think your logical leap works here. The anti-Trump wave was a movement all to itself. Most of those people are going to pop up at Kamala rallies because she was the candidate opposing Trump. I don't know how many people voted for her vs against her. Polling when she first started her run had her up big on Trump and that dwindled over time. So there clearly were some things about her that turned some people off whether fair or not.
 
Yeah, we're done bro. You're basically a slave to the Dem status quo. That's fine. Keep pushing for candidates whose goal is basically just to be a little better than the pure evil that the Reps have become.

Gee, I wonder why people aren't on your side in supporting those people?

This doesn't even make sense. There is no status quo with Democrats. That's why there's an entire segment of Progressives who spend more time attacking democrats than Republicans. If there's any party with a status quo, it's Republicans who have been in lock step for decades, no matter who is leading or following.

If Democrats are so bad, then why are all of these shit talkers still campaigning with them? Why are all of these progressives keeping their names in their mouths? If Democrats are so unpopular, why is third-party voting not a serious thing? Why haven't people started their own party to oppose Democrats like Republicans do?

Niggas are talking out of both sides of their mouth. You want people to think that Democrats are both powerful and useless. All while disregarding how this all boils down to voting.

It's funny how people who attack Democrats lump them all together. AOC and Sherrod Brown are both Democrats. They are from different parts of the country. They do not govern the same. Niggas will get on the internet and say that they are both status quo, which only shows their ignorance of what America looks like. Sherriod Brown is a former Senator in a Red State. AOC is a Congresswoman in a Blue state. There's nothing status quo about how they each govern because they are from two different parts of teh country.

If niggas get off the internet, they'll realize that now two parts of America are the same. We have 50 states, and you can lock it in that all 50 states govern completely differently.

I don't know where some of y'all live, but niggas get on here and talk like everywhere is either California, New York, Texas, or Florida. I live in Ohio. We are a Red midwest state that is mischaracterized as fuck. Ohio is a southern state. We govern like a southern state. Democrats in Ohio are not going to move like Democrats in California. Why is it that people don't understand that? You're accusing me of being status quo and completely ignoring that for the majority of people in this country, we do not have a say in where we live. Most of us were born into our situations. This ain't the internet where you can get online and talk shit like you're moving around from state to state. Some of us know that shit is different IRL depending on where you are at. Knowing all of this, how can anyone really be considered status quo? What's the status? Because I can tell you for a fact that Democrats in Ohio do not think and move the same way as Democrats from California. But we're all status quo?

Where are you from? I'm asking because I want to know what makes someone a status quo Democrat.
 
I don't think your logical leap works here. The anti-Trump wave was a movement all to itself. Most of those people are going to pop up at Kamala rallies because she was the candidate opposing Trump. I don't know how many people voted for her vs against her. Polling when she first started her run had her up big on Trump and that dwindled over time. So there clearly were some things about her that turned some people off whether fair or not.
I disagree. Why would people who are strictly voting against trump show up at her campaign? That makes less sense than the idea that she was popular since she had a huge campaign. People aren't going to her to hear her policy if they're going to vote for her to vote against trump. They're ignoring the campaigns until it's election time
 
I don't think your logical leap works here. The anti-Trump wave was a movement all to itself. Most of those people are going to pop up at Kamala rallies because she was the candidate opposing Trump. I don't know how many people voted for her vs against her. Polling when she first started her run had her up big on Trump and that dwindled over time. So there clearly were some things about her that turned some people off whether fair or not.

There was literally an entire uncommitted movement against Kamala Harris. Trump's rallies were never interrupted by protestors. Only Kamala's. Think about that. These people were so passionate about their cause that they didn't even bother to bring it to Trumpo's front door. They straight-up tried to bully Kamala into prioritizing their issue, which is an INTERNATIONAL cause in a US Presidential election.

Despite all of that, Kamala generated record-breaking voter turnout. You can't attribute that to people being anti-Trump when the energy on display was people being anti-Kamala front and center.
 
I disagree. Why would people who are strictly voting against trump show up at her campaign? That makes less sense than the idea that she was popular since she had a huge campaign. People aren't going to her to hear her policy if they're going to vote for her to vote against trump. They're ignoring the campaigns until it's election time

We've reached the point where people are downplaying Kamala getting 70 million votes after a 100-day campaign. Instead of acknowledging her popularity, people would rather find new ways to downplay it.

This must be why people feel so threatened whenever she gets brought up. It's just like HRC. Everything she said about Trump in 2016 was right, but people are still talking about how she was a bad candidate and ran a bad campaign.

Like.........hello? Trump was a worse candidate and ran an even worse campaign. Trump is getting credit for riling up racists to vote for him, but HRC and Kamala are getting no credit at all for having record-breaking voter turnout.
 
This doesn't even make sense. There is no status quo with Democrats. That's why there's an entire segment of Progressives who spend more time attacking democrats than Republicans. If there's any party with a status quo, it's Republicans who have been in lock step for decades, no matter who is leading or following...

I ain't even reading any further. You're refuting the idea that there is a Dem status quo/establishment by spouting talking points straight from the Dem establishment. You sound like a shill. Arguing that there is no status quo because like 5 out of the ~250 that are currently in the House and Senate actively oppose Dem's current course is wild.

There's no point in further back and forth between us. I don't really see the point in discussions with political sycophants regardless of what side they're on.
 
This shit makes me want to stop responding. We can agree to disagree on points but this is just being disingenuous at worst and intellectually dishonest at best. The DNC is just a grouping of Democrats? They didn't muscle Bernie out of the nomination? Didn't try to do the same thing to Obama until he proved to be undeniable? They didn't prop up Biden with false narratives and coordinated coverage? That's just in Presidential elections. Look at them trying to tilt the scale in the NYC Mayoral election.

The DNC is a group of power brokers and king makers who coalesce around power and will absolutely make moves to best ensure they maintain said power. Talking about it on the internet does not somehow negate that. This isn't the league of shadows, but it is a force that controls the media messaging and financial arms of the Democratic party. Who they support, and who they *don't* support obviously matters and they have proven repeatedly to not be above placing their fingers on the scale.

Man.................................

Who is the DNC made up of? I'm just..................please tell me that you're not one of those people who think there's a secret building where a bunch of people in suits are hovering over a hologram table making decisions like war generals.

I'm genuinely asking if you understand who actually makes up the DNC? You do realize that the DNC is just Democrats, right? It's not a place where people have a full-time job and do nothing. To make it simple, the DNC is like the NFLPA or NBA Players Association. The group is comprised of players or, in this case, elected Democrats. They elect a leader who does not have to be a player. The NBAPA is always led by an NBA player. The NFLPA is usually led by an outsider like a lawyer who the players vote in. Neither Players Association is filled with non-players. The Players Association is made up of players. The DNC is made up of elected Democrats. They meet when it's time to conduct business. Things like negotiating a new CBA or adjusting players' benefits. The DNC meets when it is time to conduct business like....elections.

This idea that the DNC is some dark money organization that's secretly out to trick people is the type of shit that Bernie Sanders has poisoned people's minds into believing. Bernie Sanders is a salty, old, white grifter, panderer, and Russian asset who has made his entire political career out of attacking Democrats. He does not fight for working-class people because he only acknowledges those people to be white. He generates very little support from Black voters because smart ones know that he is a fraud. His entire legacy has been waging his finger and attacking the party that he leeches off of. This is the guy who has people believing that the DNC is the big bad wolf that did him dirty. This man has a private jet, has been on multiple book tours, has multiple mansions, and has not sponsored A SINGLE PIECE OF LEGISLATION in his over 35 years in Congress.

I would kindly advise that you actually research what the DNC actually is before running with Bernie Sanders propaganda.
 
I ain't even reading any further. You're refuting the idea that there is a Dem status quo/establishment by spouting talking points straight from the Dem establishment. You sound like a shill. Arguing that there is no status quo because like 5 out of the ~250 that are currently in the House and Senate actively oppose Dem's current course is wild.

There's no point in further back and forth between us. I don't really see the point in discussions with political sycophants regardless of what side they're on.

Progressives and white liberals have been able to thrive because of people who think like you. They have convinced you that they are not the status quo and they are not the grifters. They have convinced you that the real enemy is the team that which they caucus with.

What type of idiot would fall for some shit like that and then have the nerve to call someone else a shill?

Who is the real shill?

These white liberals have done a real number on a lot of Black people, and especially a lot of the younger generation. They really have niggas thinking that there's going to be a revolution and that the Democratic party is what's holding them back.
 


The people of Texas have voted for Ted Cruz overwhelmingly in all of his elections. They are getting what they collectively deserve. They are being held accountable for how they voted. They could've voted for Beto years ago and been in a better situation. They could've not voted for Abbott.

Oh well. Maybe those Democratic shills and status quo Dems in Texas should just move their entire lives to California. They shouldn't be so status quo and establishment.

Wait.....Texas is a Red state run by ELECTED Republicans. Why am I attacking Democrats?
 
I disagree. Why would people who are strictly voting against trump show up at her campaign? That makes less sense than the idea that she was popular since she had a huge campaign. People aren't going to her to hear her policy if they're going to vote for her to vote against trump. They're ignoring the campaigns until it's election time

I'm really not understanding your side here. Have you never actually paid attention during an election cycle? Every election there are literally hundreds of thousands to millions of people that are 100% against candidate A because they support a candidate B in the primary. Then once the primary is over, they are 100% for candidate A because that's who became the representative for that party. Do you really think all those people just saw the light and suddenly loved the candidate A, or do you think it's possible that their loyalty to the party and opposition to the other party are strong enough to keep the engaged even though the person they initially backed fell out. This literally happens every election. When Obama ran against Hillary, a lot of the same people that were at Hillary's rallies cheering against Obama were at Obama's rallies cheering for him after he won the primary. People absolutely do go to campaign rallies for candidates they don't care for because for a lot of people it's not just about the candidate. It's about the goal.
 
I'm really not understanding your side here. Have you never actually paid attention during an election cycle? Every election there are literally hundreds of thousands to millions of people that are 100% against one candidate because they support a different candidate in the primary. Then once the primary is over, they are 100% for that candidate because that candidate became the representative for that party. Do you really think all those people just saw the light and suddenly loved the candidate, or do you think it's possible that their loyalty to the party and opposition to the other party are strong enough to keep the engaged even though the person they initially backed fell out. This literally happens every election. When Obama ran against Hillary, a lot of the same people that were at Hillary's rallies cheering against Obama were at Obama's rallies cheering for him after he won the primary. People absolutely do go to campaign rallies for candidates they don't care for because for a lot of people it's not just about the candidate. It's about the goal.
You're trying to say my point is flawed while also not having any realistic stats or sources for you own...
 
You're trying to say my point is flawed while also not having any realistic stats or sources for you own...

A lot of anti-democratic and anti-establishment talking points sound like that. The basis of their framing is not to educate. It is to destroy. They make it very clear that tearing down the house is a bigger priority than rebuilding it. They don't even have a plan to rebuild.
 
Back
Top