Trump 2024!
- Thread starter mcmurtry66
- Start date
Putin supports his political ally Trump:
He's a propagandist. Saying he prefers Biden probably hurts Biden. Russia wanted Trump to win in 2016 and 2020. This is well known and proven. Odds are very high Putin wants Trump to win in 2024.
Why would you laugh at that? It's been reported many, many times that our intel services found they did and a Republican led bipartisan Senate Committee found the same. The Russians tried to influence the election in favor of Trump mostly through social media.
Trying to prove the intent of a nation is nearly impossible. Trying to prove the intent of a KGB operative may be more so. Saying intel services “prove” most anything is foolish. Hi there, Iraqi War justification!
In 2016, Putin like nearly every informed person in the US, most likely thought Clinton was a sure thing. The dissension, then, would obviously focus on riling up anti-Clinton sentiment given their objectives. Russia has also been implicated in both supporting and opposition of BLM. Which one has it been “proven” they are in favor of?
Last edited:
Well of course it wasn't Russia as a whole. It was whatever they call the KGB these days (slipping my mind) and they were employing civilian computer nerds who liked to do bots and to otherwise stir the pot in social media.
Intelligence doesn't always get it exactly right, but they get it right more than given credit for. We've had many successful operations due to good intel.
Putin plays the right like a fiddle- I flat promise he wants Trump in office- see your senate in 2017!
I agree with all that. Prove is too strong a word. Intel services provide evidence and analysis but anyone treating what they do as "proving" something complex is bound to get something wrong. It's probabilistic. Has degrees of confidence, etc. (kinda like data and recs coming out quickly in a new pandemic).
So maybe try "it's likely that," but even then, with Putin, who knows? Dude probably has several reasons and things he'll try if Biden wins, several he will try if Trump wins.
For as long as I've been alive, I've heard the Right claim the Left's candidate is who the enemy wants to win (the Soviets, now China), so vote for my guy. So I'm pretty cynical about any such arguments today, even involving Trump.
Are they going to pull the plug on Joe? If so, how do they remove Kamala? The Dems are in some deep sh!t right now.
My hope is that Biden and Trump both drop out and we have good old-fashioned knock down drag out fights at both conventions to determine the candidates.
news.yahoo.com
7 Democrats who could replace Biden if he drops his 2024 reelection bid
President Joe Biden is committed to his reelection bid and is unlikely to exit the race. But speculation about whether he'll bow out continues to swirl.
My hope is that Biden and Trump both drop out and we have good old-fashioned knock down drag out fights at both conventions to determine the candidates.
7 Democrats who could replace Biden if he drops his 2024 reelection bid
President Joe Biden is committed to his reelection bid and is unlikely to exit the race. But speculation about whether he'll bow out continues to swirl.
Opinion | The Republican Fantasy that Democrats Will Replace Joe Biden
No, Michelle Obama is not going to be the nominee.
www.politico.com
Running her would be nuts and she has made it clear she has no interest.Opinion | The Republican Fantasy that Democrats Will Replace Joe Biden
No, Michelle Obama is not going to be the nominee.
Biden should be ruthless and replace Harris with someone popular and viable. A moderate Democratic Governor. FDR ran with a different VP all four times. I see no need to stick with the current VP, especially when the VP is even more unpopular.
I could see Romney running with ole joe. Now that would be the good old fashion politicking that is missed.
Never going to happen. Old white man replaces woman of color on the ticket? For the Dems? Yeah, that'll go over well.
We're stuck with what we got. On both sides.
Yeah that would be a huge mistake. Black women have been the base of the party for awhile now.
If Harris was replaced, it's not like they would vote for Trump. Might stay home though...
Harris is only there, to make damn sure joe is safe.
It was the most brilliant decision Biden had made during his presidency. Intentionally or unintentionally.
The best insurance policy ever purchased.
THE base?
Dems do seem to cater to it but that’s a damn small base, speaking pragmatically.
A base made up of Islamist whack jobs and LGBT folk alike. Quite a coalition.
Wait 40 years until we finally get published that Hillary and Obama were the ones running DC during the biden years. ... HEY TRUMP, your #4 job is to declassify all of that crap before the JFK incident. We need to show this in todays world, not in 40 years... This is the clear and present danger that is already inside our gates, and they've brain washed the DNC Zombies. (not that it hard to do, duh... here's some free cheese and promises that lead to civil war).
It is true that Obama had all the progressive zealotry of the Biden administration. However he also had a political sense and will to survive that acted as a modulator on how far he could push the limit...... at least in the public eye.
This admin. seems to WANT to lose. And if they don't, something is seriously fishy in American politics.
Your homophobia doesn’t serve you well. But as long as you have Trump and his toadies and crazies, you’ll never have any room to talk.
Haha. That fishy thing is the singular most unfit human to ever run for the presidency. Nice try.
Homophobia? Nay. Nay. I passionately advocate for homosexual folks to have all the rights of heterosexual folks.
Of course I am an opponent of the bastardization of the definition of marriage. One of the worst SCOTUS decisions of all time. And I don't believe they are as pre-disposed to their condition as many would have you belive. In fact I don't think they're very much pre-disposed at all. But I'm a libertarian. c'est la vie. But you can't get "Married". What you do is different.
Sorry. But they CAN get married, Grandpa. Marriage used to be about nothing but property. Nothing sacred. And your take that men are predisposed and women aren’t is ludicrous. And you wouldn’t speak of them the way you do if you weren’t homophobic. Own it.
As long as we're discussing the fundamentals of marriage wrt rights and taxation. Why does the government have any interest at all in the union of two (or even multiple) humans beings? Soon enough I will have two marriage certificates, one from the Catholic Church which I will cherish as a testament to my union under god, and one from the government that I would otherwise throw in the trash.
One could argue the state has an interest in more procreation and marriage hence the incentivization of marriage and procreation via tax breaks. But on the other hand the state has implicitly anti-procreation and anti-marriage measures in place. So it's tough to take that argument at face value. Why not let human beings exist in a state of nature? And if they're a sexual freak I don't care if they get hitched at any 2-bit house of worship that will have them.
Seems fair, no?
The state has had an interest in marriage since all antiquity that we know about. It was a major aspect of Roman, Greek, even Egyptian society. It was a social and political reality since at least as long as it was a religious one.
"Because that's the way it's always been". Hmmmmm. Not compelling for me.
Why differential treatment of unioned people as opposed to single people in the eyes of the state? What moral, social or economic justification is there for that?
Seriously?
Trump was convicted of felonies 34 times, but you think Biden is in trouble.
🤣🤣🤣
