ADVERTISEMENT

*****The official 2024 Presidential election day and results thread*****

You’re aware that almost all of those are gone and, now that he’s president, you can pretty much forget about all of it, right ?

Sadly, you are a dipshit that can't read a newspaper. Those are state charges. Guess what.... we "try" not to talk out of our asses here
 
At this point, I am nearly convinced I'm talking to an AI bot. Always plenty of extensive quoted material that has only tangential bearing on the previous point of argument.

Because I can back up what I'm saying with cites?
Lulz.

Do you truly think that FDR's prewar policies were the sine qua non that precipitated Pearl Harbor?

Yes, and this isn't some kind of secret.
Hoover wrote about it in his memoir:

Hoover blames Roosevelt for turning the Nazis and the Japanese against the United States. Hitler attacked the democracies, he writes, only because FDR pushed France and Great Britain into guaranteeing Poland’s security in 1939 with bogus promises of eventual U.S. military backing. This would indeed explain FDR’s dismay at the rapid fall of France in 1940; the strategy assumed that the French could hold out until the Americans arrived—as France had done in 1914–16. As for Japan, “we stuck pins in the rattlesnake” with an injurious trade embargo, and at Pearl Harbor, the snake bit us hard.


I realize they don't teach this in K-12, but this isn't made up.

That a rabidly imperial Japan would not have struck at the US once emboldened by the alliance with the Nazis in the Tripartite Pact?

Again, they didn't want a war with the U.S. They were trying to have an empire on the continent of Asia.
I'd rather we let the Empire of Japan fight the Vietnamese war for independence than Americans.
They turned on us because we put an oil embargo on them that was going to cripple them if they didn't abandon the war in China.
So they seized the oil fields in SE Asia.
Our colony in the Phillipines was a threat to that move, so they devised a plan to seize a large defensive belt in the Pacific and hope to bloody our nose as they had the Russians in 1905 and avoid any kind of long war.
These ideas aren't really in dispute anywhere in WW2 scholarship.

That "the fascists and communists" would have neatly settled their differences in Europe with no consequences for the US?

Certainly not hundreds of thousands of dead Americans.
When Napoleon marched on Moscow we went to war over our right to trade with the Continent of Europe in spite of Britain's blockade policy.
Would we have been better of sending troops to Europe? Of course not.
Going to Europe to fight for the French and British Empires in WW1 made bankers and arms merchants rich, but it didn't make America better off.
If you think that Hitler would have ultimately been more successful than Napoleon in stitching together a European empire without it fighting him from every corner and falling apart, we'll have to agree to disagree. You just have more faith in totalitarian societies than I do.

That the liberal democracies of Western Europe were not specifically targeted by Hitler?

He didn't even want to fight the Western Europeans. He wanted to strangle communism in the crib and create a German empire in the East.

That once continental Europe fell the Nazis could not have managed to navigate the English Channel and overwhelm the British Isles? That they didn't know how to navigate the Atlantic?

Again, your faith in the ultimate victory of totalitarians exceeds mine. I believe you also underestimate the difficulty of the endeavor.

And by the way, the Nazis absolutely had plans for the Americas. "Concepts of plans" is perhaps a phrase you will better understand.

Only in propaganda movie reel cartoons. Not in reality.

You say we didn't have to step into it. It's not possible to know for sure, but without American involvement, the European Allies likely fall, and most of the continent is dominated by a militant fascist and racist regime bent on murdering millions more people than they already had. And I guess we should also have let Japan establish a Pacific empire after they killed thousands of our sailors in an unprovoked act of war.

Back up and imagine we never step into WW1, and the French sue for peace and the communist revolt in St. Petersburg is contained east of the Brest-Litovsk line.
How many millions more live in that timeline that sees no Nazi regime rise on hopes of vengeance?
Think of the millions of eastern European who might have avoided their eventual communist fates?

Again, the Japs don't even attack us without the provocation designed to elicit that exact response.

There is a reasonable debate to be had about the extent of America's involvement abroad, but one cannot be neutral on a moving train. You--or your programming--prefer to pretend that we can excuse ourselves from the shared planet that all of humanity inhabits. We'd likely be speaking German right now, but I suspect that is what you would prefer.
Sadly, I only learned to count in German during the three years I lived there.
Do you think we should involve ourselves in all the African conflicts next? You know, to make it 'better' like we have the Middle East?
If so, I'll again kindly agree to disagree.
 
Guess what...right as the two of of you posted.... finale of The Pacific creds with actual soldiers. Something we can all agree about.
 
I really dont understand why van Jones is wondering what happened? It's because SHE SUCKS! she would have never finished in the top 5 of any primary. Anyone else wins. Quit blaming racism, she lost because she sucks and she was jammed down the throat of half of the country without a choice.
 
I really dont understand why van Jones is wondering what happened? It's because SHE SUCKS! she would have never finished in the top 5 of any primary. Anyone else wins. Quit blaming racism, she lost because she sucks and she was jammed down the throat of half of the country without a choice.
She sucks. Apply your definition of she sucks to Trump and all he is and has done and give me your analysis.
 
Thank you. I was wrong about your vote and I apologize. Trump was by far the worst possible candidate ever and should be in prison today for the record.
And you were robbed of the opportunity of choosing any other candidate. I'd be pissed. Hopefully that milf Bohannon won tho
 
Because I can back up what I'm saying with cites?
Lulz.



Yes, and this isn't some kind of secret.
Hoover wrote about it in his memoir:

Hoover blames Roosevelt for turning the Nazis and the Japanese against the United States. Hitler attacked the democracies, he writes, only because FDR pushed France and Great Britain into guaranteeing Poland’s security in 1939 with bogus promises of eventual U.S. military backing. This would indeed explain FDR’s dismay at the rapid fall of France in 1940; the strategy assumed that the French could hold out until the Americans arrived—as France had done in 1914–16. As for Japan, “we stuck pins in the rattlesnake” with an injurious trade embargo, and at Pearl Harbor, the snake bit us hard.

I realize they don't teach this in K-12, but this isn't made up.



Again, they didn't want a war with the U.S. They were trying to have an empire on the continent of Asia.
I'd rather we let the Empire of Japan fight the Vietnamese war for independence than Americans.
They turned on us because we put an oil embargo on them that was going to cripple them if they didn't abandon the war in China.
So they seized the oil fields in SE Asia.
Our colony in the Phillipines was a threat to that move, so they devised a plan to seize a large defensive belt in the Pacific and hope to bloody our nose as they had the Russians in 1905 and avoid any kind of long war.
These ideas aren't really in dispute anywhere in WW2 scholarship.



Certainly not hundreds of thousands of dead Americans.
When Napoleon marched on Moscow we went to war over our right to trade with the Continent of Europe in spite of Britain's blockade policy.
Would we have been better of sending troops to Europe? Of course not.
Going to Europe to fight for the French and British Empires in WW1 made bankers and arms merchants rich, but it didn't make America better off.
If you think that Hitler would have ultimately been more successful than Napoleon in stitching together a European empire without it fighting him from every corner and falling apart, we'll have to agree to disagree. You just have more faith in totalitarian societies than I do.



He didn't even want to fight the Western Europeans. He wanted to strangle communism in the crib and create a German empire in the East.



Again, your faith in the ultimate victory of totalitarians exceeds mine. I believe you also underestimate the difficulty of the endeavor.



Only in propaganda movie reel cartoons. Not in reality.



Back up and imagine we never step into WW1, and the French sue for peace and the communist revolt in St. Petersburg is contained east of the Brest-Litovsk line.
How many millions more live in that timeline that sees no Nazi regime rise on hopes of vengeance?
Think of the millions of eastern European who might have avoided their eventual communist fates?

Again, the Japs don't even attack us without the provocation designed to elicit that exact response.


Sadly, I only learned to count in German during the three years I lived there.
Do you think we should involve ourselves in all the African conflicts next? You know, to make it 'better' like we have the Middle East?
If so, I'll again kindly agree to disagree.
On point. As dishonest as an interlocutor comes. If you think that war wasn't coming for us eventually you are woefully misinformed. I'll note your opinion that the Allies' defense of freedom in the face of absolute tyranny was a fool's errand. Respectfully, I disagree.
 
I disagree that Joe Biden was a winner last night. Biden had the chance to have one four year term. Clean up from Covid, bring Americans home from Afghanistan, fix the economy and set up a great slate of 2024 candidates (the Dems are loaded with good options like Beshear, Shapiro, etc).

Instead he was arrogant enough to think he was the only candidate capable of beating Trump. Had he bowed out pre-primary I think this election looks very different.

Biden’s legacy should be, and always will be, tied to Kamala’s loss.
 
Because I can back up what I'm saying with cites?
Lulz.



Yes, and this isn't some kind of secret.
Hoover wrote about it in his memoir:

Hoover blames Roosevelt for turning the Nazis and the Japanese against the United States. Hitler attacked the democracies, he writes, only because FDR pushed France and Great Britain into guaranteeing Poland’s security in 1939 with bogus promises of eventual U.S. military backing. This would indeed explain FDR’s dismay at the rapid fall of France in 1940; the strategy assumed that the French could hold out until the Americans arrived—as France had done in 1914–16. As for Japan, “we stuck pins in the rattlesnake” with an injurious trade embargo, and at Pearl Harbor, the snake bit us hard.

I realize they don't teach this in K-12, but this isn't made up.



Again, they didn't want a war with the U.S. They were trying to have an empire on the continent of Asia.
I'd rather we let the Empire of Japan fight the Vietnamese war for independence than Americans.
They turned on us because we put an oil embargo on them that was going to cripple them if they didn't abandon the war in China.
So they seized the oil fields in SE Asia.
Our colony in the Phillipines was a threat to that move, so they devised a plan to seize a large defensive belt in the Pacific and hope to bloody our nose as they had the Russians in 1905 and avoid any kind of long war.
These ideas aren't really in dispute anywhere in WW2 scholarship.



Certainly not hundreds of thousands of dead Americans.
When Napoleon marched on Moscow we went to war over our right to trade with the Continent of Europe in spite of Britain's blockade policy.
Would we have been better of sending troops to Europe? Of course not.
Going to Europe to fight for the French and British Empires in WW1 made bankers and arms merchants rich, but it didn't make America better off.
If you think that Hitler would have ultimately been more successful than Napoleon in stitching together a European empire without it fighting him from every corner and falling apart, we'll have to agree to disagree. You just have more faith in totalitarian societies than I do.



He didn't even want to fight the Western Europeans. He wanted to strangle communism in the crib and create a German empire in the East.



Again, your faith in the ultimate victory of totalitarians exceeds mine. I believe you also underestimate the difficulty of the endeavor.



Only in propaganda movie reel cartoons. Not in reality.



Back up and imagine we never step into WW1, and the French sue for peace and the communist revolt in St. Petersburg is contained east of the Brest-Litovsk line.
How many millions more live in that timeline that sees no Nazi regime rise on hopes of vengeance?
Think of the millions of eastern European who might have avoided their eventual communist fates?

Again, the Japs don't even attack us without the provocation designed to elicit that exact response.


Sadly, I only learned to count in German during the three years I lived there.
Do you think we should involve ourselves in all the African conflicts next? You know, to make it 'better' like we have the Middle East?
If so, I'll again kindly agree to disagree.
Didn't have "The USA should've let Hitler exterminate the Jews" on my HBOT bingo card tonight....nice job!
 
It's not even just the states everybody is talking about. Look at New York. Biden won it like 61 to 38. Harris is only winning it 55 to 44 which is a lot of votes in a state that big.
Starting to look like Trump will win the national popular vote.

Sure as heck didn't see that coming.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sullivan
How about we start with the hundreds of thousands of criminals? Is that okay with you?
Most of that was made up info, and even with asylum they generally are not granted asylum. If you have lists fine, however we all know if this truly happens (it won’t) you will crush the economy.
 
I disagree that Joe Biden was a winner last night. Biden had the chance to have one four year term. Clean up from Covid, bring Americans home from Afghanistan, fix the economy and set up a great slate of 2024 candidates (the Dems are loaded with good options like Beshear, Shapiro, etc).

Instead he was arrogant enough to think he was the only candidate capable of beating Trump. Had he bowed out pre-primary I think this election looks very different.

Biden’s legacy should be, and always will be, tied to Kamala’s loss.
Yep.

Joe should have been a one term "save the nation" president and his VP pick should have been an heir apparent for 2024.

He picked Harris who was a terrible candidate as shown by her performance in 2019.

In addition the "red wave" that wasn't in 2022 made the D powers that be think they could just ride with 82 yr old Joe in 2024. Might have been better if the R's did have a "red wave" in 2022 so the D's could make a course correction. Basically set the table for the 2024 red wave.
 
Yep.

Joe should have been a one term "save the nation" president and his VP pick should have been an heir apparent for 2024.

He picked Harris who was a terrible candidate as shown by her performance in 2019.

In addition the "red wave" that wasn't in 2022 made the D powers that be think they could just ride with 82 yr old Joe in 2024. Might have been better if the R's did have a "red wave" in 2022 so the D's could make a course correction. Basically set the table for the 2024 red wave.

Harris didn't win a single primary delegate in either 2020 or 2024.
 
  • Like
Reactions: binsfeldcyhawk2
No I mean constantly ripping on Trump and those who vote for him and then getting upset when they do the same.
Trump is not a good human or candidate. The tail risks with Trump are really bad. It’s clear democrats didn’t put up a good enough candidate. And republicans made enormous inroads with Latinos and blacks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: binsfeldcyhawk2
Yep.

Joe should have been a one term "save the nation" president and his VP pick should have been an heir apparent for 2024.

He picked Harris who was a terrible candidate as shown by her performance in 2019.

In addition the "red wave" that wasn't in 2022 made the D powers that be think they could just ride with 82 yr old Joe in 2024. Might have been better if the R's did have a "red wave" in 2022 so the D's could make a course correction. Basically set the table for the 2024 red wave.
Yep. Well now the GOP will have significant ability to push their platform forward. I personally believe many of these policies will backfire. So I think we will eventually hit that reset point you mention. We shall see if “drill baby drill” and “100% tariffs on China” will help the American consumer. If, as I expect, blue collar/middle class lives aren’t better in 2 / 4 years it gives the Dems an opportunity.

Part of the reason Trump became popular in 2016 in the GOP primary was the backlash against George W for Iraq, the 2008 recession, etc. I can easily see the same dynamic playing out, but in reverse in the next term as the GOP fails to deliver substantive change,
 
  • Like
Reactions: binsfeldcyhawk2
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT