-
Fantastic sarcasm and piss taking
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
@Siam said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@junior said in US Politics:
@Duluth said in US Politics:
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Duluth said in US Politics:
Dem convention is 20th of August
I still suspect he won’t be the nominee. If I’m correct that will be stage managed. A Biden press conference with his wife, she talked him out of running for health reasons etc etc.. That would happen a week or so before the convention for maximum impact
Do you suspect he won't be the nominees because you think the Dems themselves believe is indeed in a state of serious decline and it will be too obvious to voters?
Or another reason?Dems are talking about it. His own campaign is clearly limiting his unscripted moments
Rasmussen polls are dodgy as fuck but 20% of Dem voters said they think he has dementia. If the real number is half that, it’s still pretty bad
Maybe he is fine. The perception is what matters
Who do they replace him with? The reason they've largely ignored the primary results and gone with him is due to the (probably misguided) belief that he has the best chance against Trump.
I don’t think it matters who the Dems put up against Trump this time. Barring skullduggery at the ballot Trump is gone.
Your contempt for the US voting public is almost palpable huh?
It's something I've seen in real life and on the internet, there seems to be a genuine belief on the left that Trump won't leave office. It's bizarre.
Where did I say he wouldn't leave office? That is the most bizzarre suggestion I have heard simply because there is no way for him to stand ground.
What has been happening is a lot of ground work on disputing postal ballots (before they are even made) and potential skullduggery around voting machine accessibility in targeted areas to test courts.
I doubt very much that these 'rumours' will come true, but they are a slim possibility and I stand by my prediction that if Trump wins it will be after some contested polling.Its the opposite. Trump will (easily) win if there isn't funny stuff with the voting. Its the democrats that are pushing for vote-by-mail not Trump. The more verifiable and honest (with only legal voters) the better for Trump. And the democrats know it.
-
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
@Duluth said in US Politics:
A competent Governor.. no idea if they have one after the way the last few months have gone. Cuomo isn’t the media darling anymore
Yes, that is the flaw in my prediction. There doesn’t seem to be a good replacement
I reckon, and no idea if others would agree, that if Biden stepped down and Michelle Obama took over she would absolutely piss it in. Smart, sensible and a clean record. I'd say the centre would love her. She's the only person that stands out to me.
Remember Hillary and what she would do to Trump. Michelle would be a fool to take on Trump. If she wants to (run for President) wait 4 more years (and do the lot not sneak in at the end). Biden should have not entered this race (don't believe these polls). My view is it will be Hillary vs Trump again as Biden's mind has gone. So he's only a joke fill-in until Hillary steps in at the last minute.
-
Well I put a lazy $25 on Kamella Harris being the nominee. She's pro establishment, the correct skin colour for office with the (assumedly) correct genitalia and I've heard a rumour there's a bit of a flu going around. It's paying $91.00. Mrs Obama was only paying $25.00
-
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
@Duluth said in US Politics:
A competent Governor.. no idea if they have one after the way the last few months have gone. Cuomo isn’t the media darling anymore
Yes, that is the flaw in my prediction. There doesn’t seem to be a good replacement
I reckon, and no idea if others would agree, that if Biden stepped down and Michelle Obama took over she would absolutely piss it in. Smart, sensible and a clean record. I'd say the centre would love her. She's the only person that stands out to me.
Yeah, but it’s not her turn. Isn’t that how it goes with the Democrats?
-
@canefan said in US Politics:
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
@Duluth said in US Politics:
A competent Governor.. no idea if they have one after the way the last few months have gone. Cuomo isn’t the media darling anymore
Yes, that is the flaw in my prediction. There doesn’t seem to be a good replacement
I reckon, and no idea if others would agree, that if Biden stepped down and Michelle Obama took over she would absolutely piss it in. Smart, sensible and a clean record. I'd say the centre would love her. She's the only person that stands out to me.
She would be fascinating. Trump used to speak admiringly of her when she was first lady, would be interesting to see how he conducts himself against a highly respected woman of colour
Well you would hope that he wouldn't grab her pussy.
-
@Duluth said in US Politics:
I still suspect he won’t be the nominee. If I’m correct that will be stage managed. A Biden press conference with his wife, she talked him out of running for health reasons etc etc.. That would happen a week or so before the convention for maximum impact
I'll take the other side of that. A managed transition is a much smoother proposition once in office than while a candidate. If their reading of the polls and internal research leads them to believe that his election is going to be a referendum about Trump then there is no need to muddy the waters with a move like that. It would take some serious balls to see GA and TX in play in recent polls and bow out.
The only complicating factor is the VP would take over and he has seriously boxed himself in with his statements on potential VP candidates.
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
I don’t get this whole “election interference “ rubbish.
AFAIK Twitter is a private organisation that has a right to allow or disallow whoever they like. They certainly don’t have to allow themselves to be an advertising or promotional tool for everyone.
If they favour one side then it becomes obvious and consumers get to choose
whether to use their product.Don't have a problem with that.
But Twitter should have the honesty and integrity to spell out clearly how its views and political partiality impact on users and how it censors it's platform. We all know where Fox News & CNN stand, why not Twitter?
If they favour one side then it becomes obvious and consumers get to choose
whether to use their product.Again, no problem with that. But let's have an anti-trust investigation into Twitter's virtual monopoly of micro-blogging media to ensure the public do have a choice.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
I don’t get this whole “election interference “ rubbish.
AFAIK Twitter is a private organisation that has a right to allow or disallow whoever they like. They certainly don’t have to allow themselves to be an advertising or promotional tool for everyone.
If they favour one side then it becomes obvious and consumers get to choose
whether to use their product.Don't have a problem with that.
But Twitter should have the honesty and integrity to spell out clearly how its views and political partiality impact on users and how it censors it's platform. We all know where Fox News & CNN stand, why not Twitter?
If they favour one side then it becomes obvious and consumers get to choose
whether to use their product.Again, no problem with that. But let's have an anti-trust investigation into Twitter's virtual monopoly of micro-blogging media to ensure the public do have a choice.
Is micro-blogging a right now? They only have a monopoly because users don’t want to change.
I’m being silly here I know but some of the very people that are so adamant about their “rights” on things like not wearing masks are also first in the queue to complain about a business having rights as well.
Yeah, Twitter should have a written policy around what is acceptable on their platform (oh they already do?).
-
@rotated said in US Politics:
If their reading of the polls and internal research leads them to believe that his election is going to be a referendum about Trump then there is no need to muddy the waters with a move like that
Current polls? Yes they won’t do it
The polls pre covid? They would have worked on a contingency plan
I agree they think it’s a ‘unlosable’ referendum on Trump. What changes that is a faulty candidate who is running out of batteries.
A few points:
The polls will probably tighten because that’s what they usually do.
Most people are not paying attention yet.
At some stage Biden needs to be seen more or the questions will grow.
If he speaks more does he continue to look unwell?Yes with the polls as they are nothing changes
The calculation changes when they think a generic Dem beats Trump easily and a creaky Biden might cost them an ‘unlosable’ election
-
I'm not sure if folk here are paying attention or going off old news but Biden is making regular appearances and being very coherent even when reporters try to tryp him up. Has recently appeared very statesmanlike in his comment around Afghanistan and the Statues issue. Has played the ball rather than the man.
Early in the piece yet as well and candidates need to tread a line regarding over-exposure. Keep some powder dry for debates etc. -
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
I don’t get this whole “election interference “ rubbish.
AFAIK Twitter is a private organisation that has a right to allow or disallow whoever they like. They certainly don’t have to allow themselves to be an advertising or promotional tool for everyone.
If they favour one side then it becomes obvious and consumers get to choose
whether to use their product.Don't have a problem with that.
But Twitter should have the honesty and integrity to spell out clearly how its views and political partiality impact on users and how it censors it's platform. We all know where Fox News & CNN stand, why not Twitter?
If they favour one side then it becomes obvious and consumers get to choose
whether to use their product.Again, no problem with that. But let's have an anti-trust investigation into Twitter's virtual monopoly of micro-blogging media to ensure the public do have a choice.
Is micro-blogging a right now? They only have a monopoly because users don’t want to change.
I’m being silly here I know but some of the very people that are so adamant about their “rights” on things like not wearing masks are also first in the queue to complain about a business having rights as well.
Yeah, Twitter should have a written policy around what is acceptable on their platform (oh they already do?).
The issue is this. They shoudl either be forced to comply with this agreement. Or have it immediately removed
“With Section 230, tech companies get a sweetheart deal that no other industry enjoys: complete exemption from traditional publisher liability in exchange for providing a forum free of political censorship,” said Sen. Hawley. “Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, big tech has failed to hold up its end of the bargain.”
Yeah, Twitter should have a written policy around what is acceptable on their platform (oh they already do?).
“There’s a growing list of evidence that shows big tech companies making editorial decisions to censor viewpoints they disagree with,” Hawley said in a statement. “Even worse, the entire process is shrouded in secrecy because these companies refuse to make their protocols public.”
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
I'm not sure if folk here are paying attention or going off old news but Biden is making regular appearances and being very coherent even when reporters try to tryp him up. Has recently appeared very statesmanlike in his comment around Afghanistan and the Statues issue. Has played the ball rather than the man.
Early in the piece yet as well and candidates need to tread a line regarding over-exposure. Keep some powder dry for debates etc.A link example would be helpful.
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
I'm not sure if folk here are paying attention or going off old news but Biden is making regular appearances and being very coherent even when reporters try to tryp him up. Has recently appeared very statesmanlike in his comment around Afghanistan and the Statues issue. Has played the ball rather than the man.
Early in the piece yet as well and candidates need to tread a line regarding over-exposure. Keep some powder dry for debates etc.A link example would be helpful.
It's called current affairs. Look at many sources, filter out the obvious fawning or logic jumping and underneath are descriptions and reality.
I'm not going to link every thing I see to save you the trouble or to provide you with stuff to critique.
Google has a search function called 'news' . You could start there.
You won't find it following Twitter. -
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
I don’t get this whole “election interference “ rubbish.
AFAIK Twitter is a private organisation that has a right to allow or disallow whoever they like. They certainly don’t have to allow themselves to be an advertising or promotional tool for everyone.
If they favour one side then it becomes obvious and consumers get to choose
whether to use their product.Don't have a problem with that.
But Twitter should have the honesty and integrity to spell out clearly how its views and political partiality impact on users and how it censors it's platform. We all know where Fox News & CNN stand, why not Twitter?
If they favour one side then it becomes obvious and consumers get to choose
whether to use their product.Again, no problem with that. But let's have an anti-trust investigation into Twitter's virtual monopoly of micro-blogging media to ensure the public do have a choice.
Is micro-blogging a right now? They only have a monopoly because users don’t want to change.
I’m being silly here I know but some of the very people that are so adamant about their “rights” on things like not wearing masks are also first in the queue to complain about a business having rights as well.
Yeah, Twitter should have a written policy around what is acceptable on their platform (oh they already do?).
The issue is this. They shoudl either be forced to comply with this agreement. Or have it immediately removed
“With Section 230, tech companies get a sweetheart deal that no other industry enjoys: complete exemption from traditional publisher liability in exchange for providing a forum free of political censorship,” said Sen. Hawley. “Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, big tech has failed to hold up its end of the bargain.”
Yeah, Twitter should have a written policy around what is acceptable on their platform (oh they already do?).
“There’s a growing list of evidence that shows big tech companies making editorial decisions to censor viewpoints they disagree with,” Hawley said in a statement. “Even worse, the entire process is shrouded in secrecy because these companies refuse to make their protocols public.”
And yet this despicable Twitter is mostly famous as the vehicle for Trump to call people names and spread mis-truths.
I'm kind of confused about what you want. -
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
I'm not sure if folk here are paying attention or going off old news but Biden is making regular appearances and being very coherent even when reporters try to tryp him up. Has recently appeared very statesmanlike in his comment around Afghanistan and the Statues issue. Has played the ball rather than the man.
Early in the piece yet as well and candidates need to tread a line regarding over-exposure. Keep some powder dry for debates etc.A link example would be helpful.
It's called current affairs. Look at many sources, filter out the obvious fawning or logic jumping and underneath are descriptions and reality.
I'm not going to link every thing I see to save you the trouble or to provide you with stuff to critique.
Google has a search function called 'news' . You could start there.
You won't find it following Twitter.I did. But I wasn't impressed still
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
I'm not sure if folk here are paying attention or going off old news but Biden is making regular appearances and being very coherent even when reporters try to tryp him up. Has recently appeared very statesmanlike in his comment around Afghanistan and the Statues issue. Has played the ball rather than the man.
Early in the piece yet as well and candidates need to tread a line regarding over-exposure. Keep some powder dry for debates etc.A link example would be helpful.
It's called current affairs. Look at many sources, filter out the obvious fawning or logic jumping and underneath are descriptions and reality.
I'm not going to link every thing I see to save you the trouble or to provide you with stuff to critique.
Google has a search function called 'news' . You could start there.
You won't find it following Twitter.I did. But I wasn't impressed still
I didn't ask you to be impressed.
Am I somehow meant to provide links that impress you?The assessment of Biden's statements is quite obviously my opinion. The fact is that he is making coherent appearances/releases etc contrary to some statements here that he is hiding away in fear of his own senility.
I'm no big fan of Biden, just following what is actually going on and commenting on it.
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
I don’t get this whole “election interference “ rubbish.
AFAIK Twitter is a private organisation that has a right to allow or disallow whoever they like. They certainly don’t have to allow themselves to be an advertising or promotional tool for everyone.
If they favour one side then it becomes obvious and consumers get to choose
whether to use their product.Don't have a problem with that.
But Twitter should have the honesty and integrity to spell out clearly how its views and political partiality impact on users and how it censors it's platform. We all know where Fox News & CNN stand, why not Twitter?
If they favour one side then it becomes obvious and consumers get to choose
whether to use their product.Again, no problem with that. But let's have an anti-trust investigation into Twitter's virtual monopoly of micro-blogging media to ensure the public do have a choice.
Is micro-blogging a right now? They only have a monopoly because users don’t want to change.
I’m being silly here I know but some of the very people that are so adamant about their “rights” on things like not wearing masks are also first in the queue to complain about a business having rights as well.
Yeah, Twitter should have a written policy around what is acceptable on their platform (oh they already do?).
The issue is this. They shoudl either be forced to comply with this agreement. Or have it immediately removed
“With Section 230, tech companies get a sweetheart deal that no other industry enjoys: complete exemption from traditional publisher liability in exchange for providing a forum free of political censorship,” said Sen. Hawley. “Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, big tech has failed to hold up its end of the bargain.”
Yeah, Twitter should have a written policy around what is acceptable on their platform (oh they already do?).
“There’s a growing list of evidence that shows big tech companies making editorial decisions to censor viewpoints they disagree with,” Hawley said in a statement. “Even worse, the entire process is shrouded in secrecy because these companies refuse to make their protocols public.”
Funny, because I found their rules quite easy to find https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules and quite clear.
Just like rugby laws though, the referees interpretation can sometimes not agree with your own.
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
I don’t get this whole “election interference “ rubbish.
AFAIK Twitter is a private organisation that has a right to allow or disallow whoever they like. They certainly don’t have to allow themselves to be an advertising or promotional tool for everyone.
If they favour one side then it becomes obvious and consumers get to choose
whether to use their product.Don't have a problem with that.
But Twitter should have the honesty and integrity to spell out clearly how its views and political partiality impact on users and how it censors it's platform. We all know where Fox News & CNN stand, why not Twitter?
If they favour one side then it becomes obvious and consumers get to choose
whether to use their product.Again, no problem with that. But let's have an anti-trust investigation into Twitter's virtual monopoly of micro-blogging media to ensure the public do have a choice.
Is micro-blogging a right now? They only have a monopoly because users don’t want to change.
I’m being silly here I know but some of the very people that are so adamant about their “rights” on things like not wearing masks are also first in the queue to complain about a business having rights as well.
Yeah, Twitter should have a written policy around what is acceptable on their platform (oh they already do?).
The issue is this. They shoudl either be forced to comply with this agreement. Or have it immediately removed
“With Section 230, tech companies get a sweetheart deal that no other industry enjoys: complete exemption from traditional publisher liability in exchange for providing a forum free of political censorship,” said Sen. Hawley. “Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, big tech has failed to hold up its end of the bargain.”
Yeah, Twitter should have a written policy around what is acceptable on their platform (oh they already do?).
“There’s a growing list of evidence that shows big tech companies making editorial decisions to censor viewpoints they disagree with,” Hawley said in a statement. “Even worse, the entire process is shrouded in secrecy because these companies refuse to make their protocols public.”
Funny, because I found their rules quite easy to find https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules and quite clear.
Just like rugby laws though, the referees interpretation can sometimes not agree with your own.
As I understand things people or companies are being banned without any reason given. At times they have been on a site for years and then just banned.
Trumps approach is a good one. Let then do this but take away their exemption
US Politics