OFFICIAL US election discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
I love how posts like this aren’t subtle in how full of 💩they are. There are ways you can make these sorts of claims half believable. This however is not one of them

IMG_3992.jpeg
 
Putting partisanship to one side, for any punters, the candidates' odds tend to oscillate wildly on election day as the votes filter in. Last election, Biden drifted out to $3.50 and Trump to $7 in the 2016 election. I won on both, but this time I don't have the heart to make a bet.
 
Still attacking the man's physicallity.....That garbage truck troll was well recieved and for an old bloke, he got up there just fine.
Except for the guy behind him there to guide him. And like I said, if its good enough for him, he’s fair game.
 
Does anyone listen to sKamala.

She doesn't know how to answer any questions with substance.

Hopes aspiration Opportunity economy blah blah

honestly, is she a legitimate leader or just a DEI hire???
Tiresome.

I agree the Democrats could have a better candidate, but she's still superior to Trump. It's a two-horse race, even if it's the battle of two lesser candidates; unfortunately Jesus Christ, Gandhi, Churchill, Mandela, Lincoln, Julius Caesar and all the other great leaders of history are too dead to be part of this US election.

Harris was ATAG for 6 years, senator for 4 years and VP for 4 years and you reckon she's DEI. It's just a plain stupid thing to be repeating, whether you are doing it because she's a woman, she's not white or because you just don't like the way she speaks. You can't get as far as she has being a moron or having no abilities, and as I keep saying to people, don't ever mistake conflating public speaking ability with governing ability. Some of the best speakers aren't great leaders and some very effective leaders aren't great in front of a microphone.
 
Putting partisanship to one side, for any punters, the candidates' odds tend to oscillate wildly on election day as the votes filter in. Last election, Biden drifted out to $3.50 and Trump to $7 in the 2016 election. I won on both, but this time I don't have the heart to make a bet.
Kamala definitely feels like Value at $2.30 but probably not enough just yet 😂
 
Thank Boris Johnson & NATO, there should have
been a ceasefire a long time ago, better yet Zelensky
should have abided by the Minsk agreements. The
west have constantly lied & deceived Russia while
training & arming Ukranians way before 2014. This
has been in preparation since the break up of the
Soviet Union. The Maidan Coup wasn't forgotten
either. The US spun 3 quarters of Europe into a recession
over their proxy war with Russia. People want to talk
about hypotheticals & aggressions on here like the
west isn't responsible 4 a large chunk of the world's
wars and interventions. Obama who they roll out
as some sort of becon of democracy had like 5
wars going on simultaneously on different fronts
during his 2 terms as President. Not to mention his
record breaking 542 drone strikes that killed over
3,000 people. People are full of shit, can't stand the
hypocrisy from the collective West/EU re: Palestine 2
 
Except for the guy behind him there to guide him. And like I said, if its good enough for him, he’s fair game.
LOL its funny a bloke in his 30's/40's having a dig at a fella near 80 climbing into a truck.
How do you think Joe would have gone? LOL What about Kamarla? He did alright.
 
Kamala definitely feels like Value at $2.30 but probably not enough just yet 😂

In elections, punters tend to jump at shadows before the full picture emerges. It's no secret that the US election will be decided by a handful of battleground states where there is a sharp divide between rural and urban voters. Since polling booths report their votes at different times, the lead can change constantly.
 
LOL its funny a bloke in his 30's/40's having a dig at a fella near 80 climbing into a truck.
How do you think Joe would have gone? LOL What about Kamarla? He did alright.
The problem isn’t so much that he struggled, it’s another example of how he’s the first to mock others for doing things he can’t even do himself.
 
Sorry I forgot to tag you on my last post @Tim Sheens

Russia should invite & arm Mexico & Cuba into BRICS.
Put nuclear warheads on their border, crazy rational

That was a tone def hypothetical about Tasmania
 
Mate. Whist I appreciate the time and effort to write this and largely agree with some of your points here, as you said, you've embellished for effect to help bolster your argument.

Unless you're going to do the same for the Democrats, it's an exercise in futility.

For example, in response to point 3 (in which you've made a raft of assumptions) under the Dems, the Ukraine War and Israel/Pal war have escalated to ridiculous proportions. There has been widespread import and supply-chain implications for that not only here, but across the globe. This has hit inflation and cost of living back pockets left, right and centre. They have been terrible/impotent at mitigating those. Trump has a track record, in his first term, of limiting large, overseas conflict. He kept Putin, Netanyahu and Kim at bay.

That is a fact.

So, whilst I agree that there COULD be implications for a new tariff approach with China specifically, remember, that the trickle down percentage trade shifts are unknown, meaning, China may shift its trade policy to protect itself, possibly ramping up Australian exports or imports in response to a more expensive trade process with the US.

Additionally, Australia operates in a free trade agreement with the US and there have been ZERO signs or indications that Trump intends or has suggested changing that. In fact, as one of the US's staunchest allies, it wouldn't make sense to do so.

Furthermore, tariff changes in the US are used, or are proposed to be used for a number of reasons, including with Mexico to address immigration, with China/NK, etc to impose strategic sanctions, or, namely, as he has said, to bolster the local economy, which, as the US is an important trade partner with Australia, would improve or increase these metrics.



There are a lot of balls in the air with this one. But it is a fool's errand to make too many down-the-road assumptions, particularly as it pertains to topics as complex as this.

Once again, I respect your opinion and the time taken to respond in such a detailed manner.
Ha that's a good one - "embellished for effect to bolster your argument". I think that almost entirely meets the definition of how an internet forum works.

But then you go on to say it is a "fact" that Trump personally limited overseas conflict. So tell me again about embellishment for your own argument. Please don't even begin to try to say that "Trump in power = no conflict" as some kind of cause and effect, as if Trump being in power prevents conflict or moves towards conflict.

I made another post earlier today, but tell me again how Russia did nothing, China did not increase their military and increase threats on Taiwan and Asian neighbours, how Hamas and Hezbollah were cowed, how the Taliban was controlled, how Israel was quietened under Trump. How the relationship with Iran was stabilised. How North Korea ceased nuclear and ballistic missile testing.

It's so crazy ignorant to think that belligerents make these moves towards conflict in a vacuum, as if they all flicked a switch when Biden became president. As if they were all doing bad stuff during Obama, then stopped during Trump, then started again under Biden. As if the last 3 land wars involving America were not initiated by Republican Presidents.

Equally crazy ignorant to think that Trump's actions were entirely unrelated to the issues that arose subsequently, as if Trump's administration had no part to play in any decisions taken from the day after he ceased being President. As if his withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal didn't encourage Iran to work on their nukes in secret and continue to back their terrorist proxies, who then kill a thousand Israelis and set off the current issues, but nonetheless issues that have festered in the Levant for thousands of years, but more specifically every single year since the state of Israel was created.

As if Putin had not annexed land in Georgia and Ukraine prior to Trump. As if Trump's pressure and disdain for NATO didn't embolden Putin to think that America might not support Europe if he invaded Ukraine a second time, that Putin took a punt that America would turn a blind eye.

And as if any countries were truly in a position to take decisive military action of any kind when Trump's final year was the start of the pandemic.

Also rash to think that American protectionism ever serves Australia's best interests. It does not! Never has in the past, will not in the future. We are best served by having a continuation of our decades-long stable relationship with the US, and for the US themselves to have stable relationships with our neighbours and partners. Harris is very likely to continue this stability, whereas with Trump all bets are off.

I'll say this again because a lot of what I do is risk management. It's not specifically that 100% of what Trump will do will be bad for Australia; that's not the argument. The argument is that when there are a lot of important issues on the line and Australia has a lot of international concerns (global material supply, climate change, geopolitical security, energy supply, global inflation and living costs, global supply changes), we want the low-risk option to occur. We want the predictable and stable relationships to continue. We don't want the hot-headed and egotistical leaders throwing their considerable weight around.

Trump is not dependable, he is not predictable. He can't be trusted. He lies as a habit. We can't work properly with these people. Harris is the low-risk option for Americans to take.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top