US Politics Thread 2021-24

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by mapuc

It sounds like it is very easy to vote in your country. That there are no further control on who's voting an American citizens or some foreigner

Markus

It’s not perfect but controls are tighter than most people have been lead to believe.

Every state is RealID compliant so in order to get a state issue ID card or drivers license one must provide proof of U.S. citizenship, state residency, date of birth and social security number. Only then will a state offer to register you to vote in federal elections. And just recently law was passed that in order to get a job in the U.S. a prospective employee whether they be a citizen or not must go online and basically register with the federal government by providing the same information.

The Save Act would tighten control of voter registration even further by helping states determine ones citizenship, and residency status via the Depart of Homeland Security database. But like I said I think if congress was really concerned about it they should have got an earlier start to get it passed so the bureaucracy had the time to implement it and work out any kinks in the system long before a presidential election.

Media is making it look as Republicans are out to get immigrants by banning them from voting. When in actuality the ban on non citizens voting in federal elections has existed for the last 28 years. The Save Act is imo just fine tuning and expanding the controls already in place.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by em2nought

All the illegal alien has to do is believe they were allowed to vote, and then there is no penalty if they illegally vote

https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_permitt..._United_States

Believe it or not there may be people out there that just don’t know voting laws. Just like you cant explain tax laws.

As long as it was found there was no intent to commit some kind of fraud then they shouldn’t be punished the same way as those who did.

Personally it isn’t non citizens that cast a vote that concerns me the most. It’s the Karen’s and party fanboy's who are U.S. citizens stuffing ballot boxes.

[mapuc]

The last trial for Biden in today's meet the Press He has to show that He can say a whole sentence and be factual in His answers.

More here in this translated Danish article

https://ekstrabladet-dk.translate.go..._x_tr_pto=wapp

Markus

[Rockstar]

While Democrats get their news watching late night comedy shows and the unelected swamp filled with Karen’s use and abuse a defenseless old man so they can stay in power.

Looks like Europe is preparing for a Trump presidency.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/cz...-if-trump-wins


Czech president on Ukraine’s fight against Russia and NATO’s future if Trump wins

Jul 10, 2024 6:35 PM EDT

World leaders have gathered at the NATO Summit in Washington to address pressing international challenges. At the top of the agenda is how to sustain Western support for Ukraine. Few leaders understand Ukrainian challenges and the NATO alliance as deeply as Czech President Petr Pavel who once served as chairman of NATO’s military committee. Geoff Bennett sat down with Pavel to discuss more.
Read the Full Transcript

Notice: Transcripts are machine and human generated and lightly edited for accuracy. They may contain errors.


Geoff Bennett:

It's the second day of the NATO summit in Washington, D.C., where leaders from around the world have gathered to address pressing international challenges. At the top of the agenda is how to sustain Western military support for Ukraine.

And perhaps few leaders understand Ukrainian challenges and the NATO alliance as deeply as Czech President Petr Pavel, a former Czech army chief he previously served as chairman of NATO's Military Committee and rose to the presidency earlier last year.

I spoke with him in Washington earlier today and began by asking him whether he thinks Ukraine can expel Russia from the Ukrainian territories it now occupies.

Petr Pavel, President of the Czech Republic:

This should be not only Ukraine's, but our ultimate goal, that we all understand that the reality on the battlefield is different from our wishes.

It will be unrealistic to expect that Ukraine, with all our assistance, will be able to liberate all the occupied territories in a short time. We should strive for full sovereignty, for full control of internationally recognized borders, but it will most probably take time.

Geoff Bennett:

When you say it will most likely take time, how long should Ukraine expect to have Russia occupy some 20 percent of its country?


Petr Pavel:

I believe, first, we have to stop the war. And at this moment, Russia has no interest in stopping fighting, because they believe they can succeed on battlefield.

And once they realize that there is no chance of getting more ground, they will be only losing manpower and equipment, then the time comes for negotiation. We can provide Ukrainian support that will convince Russia that they cannot get any further success.

And that will move them to an understanding that the only way out of this conflict is at the negotiating table. And, of course, the result of that negotiation will depend on which position fighting countries will find themselves.

And our intent and our interest should be that Ukraine is in the best negotiating position as possible.


Geoff Bennett:

The U.S. and other countries have given Ukraine long-range missiles that allow them to fire on Russian forces in Crimea. Should the U.S. allow Ukraine to use those same weapons to fire deeply into Russia?


Petr Pavel:

Well, there was such an authorization that Ukrainians may target military targets in Russia, not deep, but along Ukrainian border.

I think it's natural because Russia concentrates its forces and ammunition, equipment just behind the border. And they should be allowed to make deep strikes to defend themselves effectively.

Geoff Bennett:

Part of the agenda at this week's NATO Summit is to advance Ukraine's membership into NATO.

Is it realistic to expect that Ukraine could become a member of NATO so long as it's involved in this conflict with Russia?


Petr Pavel:

It's hard to expect that Ukraine would become a full member in a short time before the war ends.

But all the allies stress that the integration of Ukraine into NATO is irreversible process. So it will continue through bilateral cooperations. It will continue through meeting NATO standards. It will continue through reforms on Ukrainian side.

But once this conflict is over, I believe that we should proceed as quickly as possible with full integration.


Geoff Bennett:

Is NATO supporting Ukraine enough, in your view?


Petr Pavel:

NATO is supporting Ukraine increasingly as a coordinating actor.

Ukraine cannot get full guarantee as a NATO member. It cannot be covered by Article 5. Those bilateral arrangements, and the number is growing day by day, give Ukraine a predictable picture of what they can rely on in the case of hostilities or another crisis.

It's a period that will reach this time from today to full membership. I think it is the maximum what we can do today, because raising expectations that Ukraine may become a member of NATO at this summit is obviously unrealistic.


Geoff Bennett:

The Czech Republic is surrounded by Hungary and Slovakia, which, as you well know, are both pro-Putin right now. What does that mean for you, for your leadership, and how do you fend off these populist trends?


Petr Pavel:

We are trying to be as open and as transparent as possible to our public, and not to let ourselves be distracted by their narratives that are quite often misleading.

It's not the case in Hungary and Slovakia. These countries are probably more attracted by Russian narratives, in expectation that some time in the future, they will restore good relations with Russia. It should be in our interest to have good relations with Russia, on the condition that Russia respects international norms and order based on rules.

Until then, it's hard to have any meaningful relationship with Russia because it doesn't keep promises.


Geoff Bennett:

How closely are you following the U.S. election?


Petr Pavel:

Well, with great interest, of course.

The democratic world is always looking for a leader, someone to look at in times of crisis and difficulties. And the United States are naturally leading the democratic world, because it's the most powerful country of this family. It doesn't mean that we should be all dependent on the United States.

I think it's about a true partnership. Europe should be able to provide much more in terms of its own defense and capabilities.


Geoff Bennett:

Why hasn't it been able to?


Petr Pavel:

Because it was comfortable, yes.

After the Cold War, when everyone believed we are now facing times of cooperation and building prosperity, European countries had a tendency to spend less on defense. Unlike U.S., you see a number of challenges around the world which were not so close to Europe.

Decades ago, the share was roughly 50/50 between European allies and the United States. Over time, it turned to 75 percent for the United States and only 25 for Europe. It's not fair. And we should come back to the reasonable share of our responsibility.


Geoff Bennett:

In your view, what would Donald Trump winning back the White House in November mean for the future of the NATO alliance and the security of individual NATO countries?


Petr Pavel:

Well, I believe, with the experience that we had from his term from 2016 to 2020, he had a number of strong expressions.

But, in reality, he pushed the alliance in the right direction.


Geoff Bennett:

In what ways?


Petr Pavel:

We may criticize the way, how he presented the arguments, but the arguments themselves were fair, because what he wanted was the fair share of our responsibility.

A number of countries are now meeting the commitment to spend at least 2 percent of GDP on defense. A number of countries are heavily investing into modernization. So, I think his message came through.

If Donald Trump gets elected again, I don't think it will mean any disaster for Europe or Ukraine, because the United States are aware that they need Europe, the same way as Europe needs the United States.


Geoff Bennett:

Is that a view that is shared among other NATO countries?

Petr Pavel:

I believe so, because a number of countries understand the rationale behind these calls on NATO European allies, because we were truly spending much less than was necessary.

And we all realize that, with Russia being the most urgent and imminent threat to European security, we need, effectively, to do more. So even without any strong calls from the United States, we are doing that in our self-interest.

Geoff Bennett:

Petr Pavel, president of the Czech Republic, thank you so much for your time. We appreciate it.


Petr Pavel:

Thank you.

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Personally it isn’t non citizens that cast a vote that concerns me the most. It’s the Karen’s and party fanboy's who are U.S. citizens stuffing ballot boxes.

I totally agree, but those views are still not to be tolerated, even after the whole "emperor has no clothes" farce they've sold us has now been exposed.

[Rockstar]

I kid you not I feel bad for the guy. I said long ago before he was elected he would go out as a laughing stock and embarrassment.

[Skybird]

Question to the Democrats: how dare you nominate such a candidate?

Question to the former Republicans: how dare you nominate such a candidate?

Neither of you have any respect for the American people. You are both driven by greed for "career" only.

You both are disgusting.

[Reece]

Yes!! How dare they!!

[Jimbuna]

Kamala Harris could be part of an all-female ticket to challenge Donald Trump

The week has generated such a blizzard of speculation and controversy in American politics that a small but vital moment of clarity was overlooked. Asked if she would consider running for president if Joe Biden stepped away, Gretchen Whitmer, the no-nonsense Michiganite who has come to represent for many Democrats a dream candidate for the White House, was unequivocal in her response. “No,” she replied with the candour that is part of her appeal.

“It’s a distraction more than anything. I don’t like seeing my name in articles like that because I’m totally focused on governing and campaigning for the ticket,” said the Michigan governor.

The Democratic Party has fallen into a bizarre, public game of fantasy-presidency and Whitmer ruling herself out once has left Kamala Harris, maligned for much of her vice-presidency during the Biden administration, as the most likely – maybe the only – potential saviour of the Democrats’ campaign.

If Biden, his family and campaign managers ultimately listen to the increasingly unsubtle hints from erstwhile friends and allies and take the monumental decision to end his campaign, then Harris may suddenly become the Democrats last and only chance of preventing Donald Trump from returning to the White House. In the meantime, she has found herself in the curious role of campaigning vigorously (it is hardly a coincidence that Harris has, over the past few weeks, taken on the more arduous West Coast rallies) and presenting a steadfast loyalty to her president while the public suddenly sees her through the lens of potential nominee.

The advantages of having Harris inherit the nomination are obvious. She can spend the money raised for the Biden-Harris ticket without legal complications arising. Bypassing Harris in favour of a new candidate would be awkward to explain away: it would be a de-facto admission that she was chosen for vice-president as a Diversity, Equality and Inclusion candidate.

Harris’s 2020 presidential campaign was sufficiently lacklustre for many party strategists to have grave worries about her ability to spar with a political opponent with the venom and elusiveness of Trump. But unpopular as Harris has been throughout her years as VP, her authoritative and passionate defence of reproductive rights has led to a degree of revisionism. And if Harris has failed to register with the public over the term of the Biden administration, how much opportunity has she been given to do so?

As Biden’s public appearances and utterances become frail and unconvincing, Harris has come to appear increasingly engaged, warm and confident on public platforms. This became strikingly clear on the night of Biden’s debate meltdown in Atlanta when, less than half an hour after the show had ended, she made an unscheduled appearance on CNN to defend her president. She spoke well and was loyal throughout what was an impossible defence. But most importantly, she offered a refreshing change of voice, face, tone, message and gender from what 50 million people had just witnessed: two embittered male seniors of whom the US has grown tired, bickering and squabbling in a wearisome exchange of hackneyed perspectives that degenerated into a truly pathetic slinging of insults over their respective golf games.

At 59, Harris belongs to a different generation from Biden and Trump. And, of course, her potential elevation to the top of the Democrat ticket would create a glittering question mark over who would become her running mate. Here is where Whitmer could re-enter the picture. The boldest scenario would see Whitmer (52) emerge as a running mate to Harris. One of Whitmer’s most significant achievements as governor of Michigan was to sign the repeal of the state’s 1931 abortion ban, followed by the Reproductive Health Act, which expanded women’s health-related rights, issues which Harris has come to champion. And Whitmer is an established name and figure in the Rust Belt states, which will define the outcome of the election. Both women are former prosecutors and would, of course, be facing down an opponent who is a convicted felon.

An all-female Democratic ticket would represent a radical departure in American politics. But the airwaves are clogged with voices warning that this summer represents an emergency for US democracy. And that demands a brave response. Several polls show that right now, Harris is tied with Trump in “what if” questions about the presidency, with months left for her to deliver the message that many Democrats and voters fear Biden can no longer do.

There is a scenario still achievable for the Democrats in which Biden passes the torch with grace and facilitates a historic progression in US politics: his last contribution could become his defining one.

The bold presentation of a Harris-Whitmer ticket may not be enough to persuade sufficient numbers of Democratic and undecided voters to send them to the White House. But at the very least, the party wouldbe able to point to the fact that out of this chaotic moment, it responded with integrity and courage and offered a clear alternative to the dismal, fear-laden vision of America offered by Trump.
https://www.irishtimes.com/world/us/...-donald-trump/

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Question to the Democrats: how dare you nominate such a candidate?

Question to the former Republicans: how dare you nominate such a candidate?

Neither of you have any respect for the American people. You are both driven by greed for "career" only.

You both are disgusting.

We don’t nominate candidates, the likes of Jaime R. Harrison and Michael Whatley do.

EDIT: Not to single any one party out as they both do it. Major Democratic donors (the ones that really hold sway over nominations) are said to be freezing roughly $90 million pledged to the largest super PAC supporting President Biden if he remains on the ticket.

Early on many of us peons saw the writing on the wall before our current president was elected.

What was it that got him elected though? Years of unfounded accusations against the other candidate of course. The gullible and naive were so easily duped to form their opinions based on years of bull**** headlines and late night comedy shows endlessly spewing things like Russia gate, selling secret codes, Steele dossier, pee tapes, collusion, dictator, orange hair, grabbin’ some snatch, horse dewormer etc etc etc. And you fell for every word of it, what else did you form your opinion on if not that crap?

Now we have bureaucrats protecting their positions by abusing an old man so they, the unelected can stay in power, let’s face it Biden isn’t running the show a bunch of faceless bureaucrats whom nobody, democrat, republican or independent voted for are.

I believe that is the swamp August referred too so very long ago.

[Shadowblade]

[Rockstar]

Vice president Trump?

[Jimbuna]

NATO summit fury as Joe Biden 'ruins months of hard work' with cringeworthy gaffe

Joe Biden's gaffes at the NATO summit have ruined months of hard work, diplomatic officials have claimed.

The US president had hoped to salvage what remains of his re-election campaign amid mounting calls to stand aside after a poor TV debate against Republican rival Donald Trump in June.

But the leader of the free world stunned his audience at a meeting of the NATO-Ukraine council on Thursday (July 11) by referring to Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky as Russian president Vladimir Putin, before correcting himself. At a later news conference, he slipped up again, calling his Vice President, Kamala Harris, "Vice President Trump".

NATO leaders did their best to ignore or sidestep questions about Mr Biden's performance, instead trying to talk up his leadership and the military alliance's unity in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
French President Emmanuel Macron and UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer were asked repeatedly about the Putin gaffe but declined to answer directly.

Mr Macron said: "We can all have a slip of the tongue. It's happened to me. I'm sure it will happen to me again tomorrow, and I'd ask you to be just as kind to me."

While officials defended Mr Biden publicly, diplomatic sources speaking on condition of anonymity have told the Telegraph the gaffes ruined months of hard work and undermined the summit.

Sources told the publication the gaffes will have displaced stories about their successes with the president's gaffes knocking NATO off the front pages. Mr Biden's mistakenly identifying Ukraine's president as Putin also made it to the top of TV news in Russia.

One told the Telegraph: "It's taken the focus away from what has been a great summit for us."

"The Americans had put in months of groundwork into preventing another 'Vilnius moment'," another source told the outlet referring to comments by Zelensky at last year's summit after being refused an invitation.

A possible Trump presidency, Mr Biden's infirmity and how Mr Zelensky would act all hung over the summit. Mr Trump has repeatedly questioned NATO's relevance and suggested he might either withdraw from the alliance or refuse to defend allies who do not meet the grouping's two percent defence spending commitments.

Outgoing NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said he wasn't concerned about the US commitment to the alliance if Mr Trump returns to the White House as it has bipartisan support in Congress and a record number of allies are hitting their military spending goals.

Mr Zelensky embraced the support of allies who have provided new military aid and a path to joining NATO. He pushed for help to arrive faster and for restrictions to be lifted on the use of US weapons to attack military targets inside Russia.

The Ukrainian president said: "If we want to win, if we want to prevail, if we want to save our country and to defend it, we need to lift all the limitations."

Mr Biden said at his news conference he is the "best-qualified person" to make sure the 32-member transatlantic alliance remains strong and Ukraine does not fall to Putin.

He said: "Foreign policy has never been his strong point and he seems to have an affinity to people who are authoritarian. That worries Europe, that worries Poland, and nobody, including the people of Poland, think if (Putin) wins in Ukraine, he's going to stop in Ukraine."
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...2ecb1a997&ei=9

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

What’s repulsive is how anyone can still support the Democrat Party. A Party that took advantage of & abused an old man with failing mental acuity unable to defend himself for their own personal gain. And now that the Party is finished with the old man is being driven out and his legacy will be that of a laughing stock.

Originally Posted by Rockstar

While Democrats get their news watching late night comedy shows and the unelected swamp filled with Karen’s use and abuse a defenseless old man so they can stay in power.

...

Oh, Geez, Camille, stop clutching at your pearls over your sensitivity regarding elder abuse; or is it just you trying to get your money's worth out of that "Sincerity 101" course you took at Trump University...

Watching the news about Biden's run for reelection, I wondered if Biden's move isn't just a bit of a 'rope-a-dope' against the GOP; Biden announces he's running, the the Trumpettes push for the GOP to nominate Trump, a very weakened candidate at best, and, once Trump is locked in, Biden and the DEMs find some reason for Biden to drop out and run another DEM in his place; as I said almost anyone can beat Trump in his current condition, and the GOP would be faced with having to replace Trump as a countermeasure only to then face Trump as a 'spoiler' if he decides to 'get even' with the GOP; the GOP should look long and hard at they way they intend to select their nominee in 2024...

The above quote is from a post i made back on 04/25/2023, over a year ago

https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/sho...postcount=5633

The current situation plays very much into what I had postulated at that time; Biden will absolutely drop out of the race, but, I believe, not until after the GOP has finished their convention in the next week; at the end of the convention, the GOP will have locked in Trump as their candidate, whoever he picks for VP as a co-candidate, and will have formalized and locked in the GOP Party Platform; the GOP leadership is visibly anxious to have Biden drop out now before the GOP convention starts so they can see who the DEMs will put up as a candidate (and the VP pick) so they can tailor their response while the convention is still running; everything the GOP has been planning and preparing for since 2020 has pivoted on the assumption Trump would be facing Biden in the November Election, but all that is now going out the window; getting 'cast in stone' with their candidate and policy platform and then finding out who their DEM opponent will be will most likely put a huge strain on the GOP; the GOP is already showing signs of the stress they are facing; the GOP has announced they are softening their hardline positions on abortion and same-sex marriage, as well as seeing top GOP leaders and Trump suddenly openly disavowing the Far Right "Project 2025" 'master plan', an open acknowledgement the hardline 'my way or the highway' Far Right stance just isn't going to fly with the voters...


RNC panel approves new Trump-backed platform softening abortion and same-sex marriage language --

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/08/polit...ion/index.html


Trump’s Sleazy New Project 2025 Disavowal Scam Blows Up in His Face --

https://newrepublic.com/article/1837...cam-blows-face


So, basically, Trump, and the GOP, don't really know who will be the DEM nominee going into their convention next week and they also don't know what the final DEM platform, with a new candidate, will be formed around and finalized; the "rope-a dope" is on and Trump/GOP are punching out at a candidate who won't be there soon and trying to make election policy in a void...

I personally don't think Harris will be the ultimate DEM candidate; the worst case scenario for the GOP is if the DEMs pick a substantially younger candidate with a broad party backing; the GOP would be left with having to deal with and defend their doddering old sociopath and trying to make him palatable to the majority of the voters; considering Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 by 2,868,686 votes and then in 2020 by 7,052,770 votes, the trend doesn't seem to be in Trump's/the GOP's favor; in2016, Trump only got the White House by a combination of Clinton's negligence is shoring up the battleground states and Trump's gaming of the Electoral College; in 2020, the DEMs paid attention to the battleground states and turned out voters in droves to defeat Trump by a margin nearly 2.5 times larger than in 2016 and took the Electoral College in a landslide; Trump is scarcely a more palatable candidate now than he was in 2016/2020, so it looks like a real uphill fight for the GOP...

Imagine if the DEMs put up younger substantially candidate, with the mental acuity to deal with issues and command; will the voters begin to really seriously look at the hot mess that is Trump and ask the GOP "Is he really the best you've got to offer this country?" If the DEMs really do come up with a young, capable candidate, I can pretty much bet that Trump will not be engaging in a second Presidential Debate before the Election...

BTW, I just yesterday saw an excerpt from an upcoming interview with California Governor Gavin Newsom where he emphatically states he does not want the DEM nomination to be President; one of his stated reasons is how invasive the whole campaign process is given the intense scrutiny of candidates by the press, opposing parties, pundits, etc., at the Presidential level; it is rather sad that some candidates who actually might have something to bring to the office in the way of new ideas, methods, and policies are dissuaded from seeking office owing to the onerous trials of campaigning; I am particularly thinking of Republican Paul Ryan who may have been one of the best hopes to save the GOP, if the hardliners hadn't backstabbed him spectacularly; he is someone I probably would have voted for...




<O>

[mapuc]

Here's an another question to my American friends.

Prolog.

It is said that if Biden refuse to step down the Dems has to nominee him as their candidate.

Here's my question:

Have it ever happened that one of your party have chosen an another candidate than the sitting President ?

I'm not talking about President who has become ill or have died during their Presidency-Here they would most likely pick the VP

Markus