Trump is losing the debate acting like a raving lunatic

We Never Know said:

You may as well give up.
You've told them numerous times you don't live in a swing state and they still don't get it.

Click to expand...

This is true. I've also told them over and over again that I prefer the Republican platform to the Democrat one but they never respond to that.

Copernicus said:

I can only marvel at the self-deception. You only get two choices: Harris or Trump..

Click to expand...

..and that is the kind of attitude that prevents other parties gaining strength.
Right .. it's practically impossible for a smaller party to win right now, but how can that change,
if nobody supports the Libertarian Party, for example .. they might grow and win one day.

Naturally, if the population doesn't want change, they won't get it .. not by voting, in any case.
It's not irresponsible, imo, not to vote for the lesser of 2 evils .. it's the voters that DO vote for them
that are responsible for who wins.

Kathryn said:

I am not responsible for the choices of others, I am only responsible for myself, and my own ability to sleep at night or not. I don't live in a swing state and I am glad I don't, though I'd probably still write in my third party vote, though I am realistic. And I prefer the Republican platform over the Democrat platform.

Click to expand...

In any time before 2016 you could present an argument. In 2024 there is no rational argument to support republicans. Their platforms are immoral and have aims that are not plausible unless they change certain laws. So the republicans will likely do whatever they want and fall back on right wing courts, especially the SCOTUS, to cover their acts. For example deporting millions of migrants, including those here legally, will require a suspension of current immigration laws. That didn’t stop Trump in 2019 when they put migrants in facilities that were not sanitary nor safe for those held beyond the 24 hour maximum. They broke domestic and international laws. They didn’t care.

It will be worse. And I will bet that you and many other conservatives will regret wanting him to be president again.

muhammad_isa said:

Copernicus said:

I can only marvel at the self-deception. You only get two choices:

Click to expand...

..and that is the kind of attitude that prevents other parties gaining strength.
Right .. it's practically impossible for a smaller party to win right now, but how can that change,
if nobody supports the Libertarian Party, for example .. they might grow and win one day.

Naturally, if the population doesn't want change, they won't get it .. not by voting, in any case.
It's not irresponsible, imo, not to vote for the lesser of 2 evils .. it's the voters that DO vote for them
that are responsible for who wins.

Click to expand...

Muhammad, you do not seem to understand why we have a two-party system. I referenced this in an earlier post, which you may have missed, so I'll repeat it here: Duverger's Law. Basically, in an election system that relies on winner-take-all pluralities, a two-party system usually emerges. That is what we have in the United States.

In political science, Duverger's law (/ˈduvərʒeɪ/ DOO-vər-zhay) holds that in political systems with single-member districts and the plurality voting system, (as in the U.S.), two main parties tend to emerge. In this case, votes for minor parties can potentially be regarded splitting votes away from the most similar major party.[1][2] In contrast, systems with proportional representation usually have more representation of minor parties in government.[3]

Click to expand...

Kathryn said:

This is true. I've also told them over and over again that I prefer the Republican platform to the Democrat one but they never respond to that.

Click to expand...

There is no Republican platform. And you never specify what you dislike about the platform of Democrats. Who will tell you exactly what they find problematic with the Republican party. Even lifelong Republicans will tell you why the current state of the party is in trouble. Ones with top secret information. And who are now compelled to the point of supporting Kamala Harris in the upcoming election.

We Never Know said:

You may as well give up.
You've told them numerous times you don't live in a swing state and they still don't get it.

Click to expand...

And I have taken that into account in literally every post in order to explain why she is a Trump supporter, but not a Republican loyalist like Dick Cheney, who also doesn't live in a swing state. I understand you wanting to give her moral support, because you also are uncomfortable with being a conservative who isn't comfortable with supporting a political party with Donald Trump at its head.

Kathryn said:

This is true. I've also told them over and over again that I prefer the Republican platform to the Democrat one but they never respond to that.

Click to expand...

The Republican Party holds a wide range of "platform" points.

The positions of the Republican Party have evolved over time. Currently, the party's fiscal conservatism includes support for lower taxes, gun rights, government conservatism, free market capitalism, free trade, deregulation of corporations, and restrictions on labor unions.

But digging deeper brings up this, plus more:
[ ] opposing labor unions
[ ] pro-business
[ ] American exceptionalism
[ ] Christian values
[ ] strong national defense
[ ] capital punishment
[ ] gun rights
[ ] oppose LGBTQ rights
[ ] moral absolution
[ ] laissez-faire economics
[ ] pro-capitalism
[ ] query climate change
[ ] query epidemiology
[ ] restrictive immigration

The only thing I found for education was in support of government funding for religious private schools.

Your thoughts on the above,?

Copernicus said:

Muhammad, you do not seem to understand why we have a two-party system. I referenced this in an earlier post, which you may have missed, so I'll repeat it here: Duverger's Law. Basically, in an election system that relies on winner-take-all pluralities, a two-party system usually emerges. That is what we have in the United States.

Click to expand...

The UK also has a "first past the post" system, and nearly always ends up being one of two.

That does not change what I said .. it's the people who vote FOR a candidate, that is responsible
for them winning.

Voting for a candidate of your choice, who might have little chance of winning, is
preferable to abstention.

muhammad_isa said:

The UK also has a "first past the post" system, and nearly always ends up being one of two.

That does not change what I said .. it's the people who vote FOR a candidate, that is responsible
for them winning.

Voting for a candidate of your choice, who might have little chance of winning, is
preferable to abstention.

Click to expand...

True, if you do not vote then you have taken away your right to complain. In a two party system, where only one or the other has a chance to win and the odds of a third are almost zero one needs a good excuse for doing that.

Subduction Zone said:

True, if you do not vote then you have taken away your right to complain.

Click to expand...

Not really.
I'm entitled to think that most people vote for a party which favors them financially, and not for
ideological reasons.

We get what we vote for .. if I don't agree with either, then I won't vote for either.
If the system is unfair, and not representative of the population, then they should speak up,
and push for reform.

If you don't like where you live, then vote with your feet. (if you can)

Subduction Zone said:

True, if you do not vote then you have taken away your right to complain.

Click to expand...

Complaining is a right?

We Never Know said:

Complaining is a right?

Click to expand...

The right to complain is an idea used by those who not recognise the right to pursue justice independent of the political process, eg "if you don't vote then you can't complain".

We Never Know said:

Complaining is a right?

Click to expand...

Yes, it's part of the First Amendment. The right to complain is still in force whether one votes or not.

muhammad_isa said:

That does not change what I said .. it's the people who vote FOR a candidate, that is responsible
for them winning.

Click to expand...

Nor do you contradict what I said. In a two-party system, you usually get only three choices:

1. Vote for one of the two parties, e.g. Harris/Walz
2. Vote for the other of the two parties, e.g. Trump/Vance
3. Accept whichever of categories 1 or 2 other people choose for you

Abstaining is a choice, if you are eligible to vote, so it falls into category #3. Voting for a minor party category is a choice functionally equivalent to abstaining, so that also falls into category #3. Logically, the only reason to choose #3, is if you consider #1 and #2 to be equally bad or equally good choices. I know that Americans do not like to think of it in these terms, but those are the only choices they get. Kathryn opts for choice #3 only because she believes it will result in choice #2 prevailing. It is a way to say that she gets to have it both ways.

The UK has a parliamentary form of government, where the legislature chooses the head of government in the form of a PM. They cannot choose the head of state, so that is irrelevant. It can make sense to vote for a minor party in a parliamentary system, if that could result in a coalition government where that minor party has some say. In the US, we do have a few independent representatives that sort of operate this way--by "caucusing" with one of the two major parties in order to give that party a functional majority in the legislature. However, that is rare and usually involves just individual, or "Independent" candidates outside of a political party structure. But, again, that kind of behavior only applies to voting for a legislator, not the executive.

I actually favor implementing a ranked-choice voting system, which makes it feasible for voters to register an initial third-party choice but actually end up voting for one of the two major parties. Ranked-choice voting would mitigate the effect of plurality voting and would likely have resulted in Hillary Clinton winning the 2016 election. She was the one who ended up winning the popular vote, which the electoral college system was designed to circumvent as a way of gaining parity between Slave states and Free states in the 18th and 19th centuries..

We Never Know said:

Ask a person why they won't vote for Harris and the usual answer is I don't like dems and/or their platform. That's politics.

Ask a person why they won't vote for Trump and the usual answer is I don't like Trump or I hate Trump. That's emotion.

Click to expand...

I run across the reverse often, ie, hate Harris, but love Trump's policies.

Stevicus said:

Yes, it's part of the First Amendment. The right to complain is still in force whether one votes or not.

Click to expand...

Yeah I figured that. But they said lose the right to complain, so I figured I would ask if its a right and when they confirmed its part of the first, my next reply would be then they don't lose it.

Father Heathen said:

As predicted, MAGA playing dumb and wallowing in denial over Trump's embarrassing performance. Come on guys, let's be rational, honest adults. Your Trumpus Christ is far, far, far from being the infallible god-king that you fantasizing him being.

Click to expand...

Uh huh. So no evidence is coming then.

Pogo said:

There is no national sales tax on all products except there are taxes on some products like 18.4 cents per gallon on gasoline.
Oops blew that one didn't you.

Click to expand...

Not what I am talking about. I am talking about a national sales tax, not taxes on certain products. Just stop with the attitude, it looks like you are desperate.

Pogo said:

First definition of a tax:
a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.
"higher taxes will dampen consumer spending"

In this case it is added to the cost of the goods imported from a given country. That it is not added at time of sale to the end user does not make it not a tax.
In fact, a tariff is a type of tax.

A tariff is a tax on the import or export of goods between countries. Tariffs are a type of trade barrier that can help regulate foreign trade and protect domestic industries.

Now you understand some more English words.

Click to expand...

Again, not what I am talking about. I never said a tariff was not like a tax. I said it was not a national sales tax. Why do you always have to be a jerk?

Evangelicalhumanist said:

Not at all. Canada has a national sales tax -- and exempt goods include medical equipment, groceries and exports. If you give lessons, such as how to play the piano or guitar, or you provide childcare, you're exempt from collecting and remitting GST/HST. The CRA deems any business with $30,000 or less in revenue to be a small supplier, and they are not required to collect and remit GST/HST

Click to expand...

OMG, of course there will be exceptions.

Evangelicalhumanist said:

Because some tariffs are useful tools for government use. But Trump is not promising "some." He is promising tariffs on ALL imports, and very high tariffs on ALL imports from China.

Click to expand...

Ok, we can talk about this but that os not what I have been talking about.

Evangelicalhumanist said:

Face it, the U.S. does not manufacture everything that its citizens buy, so everything in that category would go up. When the U.S. becomes self-sufficient (or nearly so) in manufacturing computer chips, it may well be a good idea to impose tariffs on imports -- but until then, it would increase the cost of absolutely everything that has a chip (or many chips).

Click to expand...

Again, we can talk about this but that os not what I have been talking about.

F1fan said:

I'm not going to stop correcting your errors and false beliefs.

Yes you did. And you haven't bothered to explain how you were correct.

Do you want credit for acknowledging a fact?

That's why Harris referred to Trump's tariff as "Trump's national sales tax", because the Chinese imports will have added costs attached to them, and the government collects, and the consumer has to cover it when they buy the item. You are trying to split hairs. The two are essentially the same thing despite having different motivations and enforcements. Her phrase is meant to be political. You are trying to insist it's literal.

I said no such thing. I said certain types of Trump supporters are scum, and you took that condemnation on yourself. You denied being a MAGA a few times, and now you have sunk so low in the rhetoric and falsehoods that you seem content with that label now. Are you retreating more and more into the MAGA redoubt as others challenge your posts?

Click to expand...

Nope you said trump supporters were scum, you never qualified it and when I asked multiple time if I was scum you refused to answer.

So, am I scum?