Politics Hypocrisy of The Right.

[WealstoneRaider]

Biden will be bland but safe. Even if he has dementia, there will be more capable people behind the scenes running the nation. The dems can do it 'Weekend at Bernies' style if they have to.

Trump is a shitshow, both as a human and a politician. How many friends does he have left to throw under the bus?

I don’t think people care too much about who he throws under the bus when it comes to voting. They look for three things, the economy, the economy and the economy. After that it’s all just a sideshow. Actually slightly disingenuous because there’s obviously matters that different groups and factions in the US deem just as important but what will get you re-elected is if the average American is doing well under that current regime.

Forget what Trump is like as a human being, these things clearly no longer matter. Politics has changed, I don’t think that can be denied

 

[iBeng]

Imagine though having to choose between Trump and Biden though? And this is supposed to be the leading democratic country in the world? System is clearly broke over there

This is a good point and something thats always going to be a problem in America. The pre-election run to pick a representative for either party is the best way they have right now of getting to an at least majority supported candidate.

Trump would have walked the election had Covid not hit. For all his faults (and yeah and there’s lots) he’s actually got many good things done despite the huge resistance from both the dems and the media. Biden is likely to be in the early stages of dementia. The country is kind of f’ed either way

I think the big difference, and looking at the health of candidates is an important thing, is what Biden does with the advice and feedback of those around him. He watched Obama lead for 8 years and watched him soundboard off those around him and use them as the advisor they are meant to be. If any of the reports are true, and there are a lot of them, Trump prefers to go his own. Its part of his belief that the end results are his doing, unless the end results do not favour his image. Its mostly in his language when he talks about what HE has achieved. He rarely mentions what they government or his party has done.

Im not the biggest Biden fan personally, and I hope if he does win and his health does become a concern that he can recongise that and so can his party.

 

[Ants]

Wow scraping the bottom of the barrel in here to keep this thread alive...

-Ivanka's email
- Mat Gaetz a criminal Lol the video doesn't work and if it did no one cares!

I think it speaks significantly to your own morality that you think someone supporting a murderer to distract attention from a minor wrong by their daughter is "scraping the bottom of the barrel". And given this is the hypocrisy of the right thread, the hypocrisy over the behaviour of Ivanka and her emails, or hell the treatment of Kushner and his security clearance, compared to the really unbiased concern that Hillary had endangered national security, is directly to the point of the thread.

 

[Ants]

Trump would have walked the election had Covid not hit. For all his faults (and yeah and there’s lots) he’s actually got many good things done despite the huge resistance from both the dems and the media. Biden is likely to be in the early stages of dementia. The country is kind of f’ed either way

I don’t think people care too much about who he throws under the bus when it comes to voting. They look for three things, the economy, the economy and the economy. After that it’s all just a sideshow. Actually slightly disingenuous because there’s obviously matters that different groups and factions in the US deem just as important but what will get you re-elected is if the average American is doing well under that current regime.

Forget what Trump is like as a human being, these things clearly no longer matter. Politics has changed, I don’t think that can be denied

Of course its all about the economy. That's why the Dems won 2016 after 8 years of good economic management, after Bill had 8 years of good economic management, after Bush had screwed the economy. Right. Oh, hang on a second, they lost...

Well then, Trump with his strong economy would definitely have walked the election. That's why the Republicans romped in the 2018 mid-terms.....

And a good think Trump will get in over Biden, given its clear Biden is suffering dementia. The 11 second video from his round table that went for 90 minutes is clear evidence. And if that is sufficient evidence, its good that Trump has never in the recent past rambled at any point in time.....

 

[WealstoneRaider]

Of course its all about the economy. That's why the Dems won 2016 after 8 years of good economic management, after Bill had 8 years of good economic management, after Bush had screwed the economy. Right. Oh, hang on a second, they lost...

Well then, Trump with his strong economy would definitely have walked the election. That's why the Republicans romped in the 2018 mid-terms.....

And a good think Trump will get in over Biden, given its clear Biden is suffering dementia. The 11 second video from his round table that went for 90 minutes is clear evidence. And if that is sufficient evidence, its good that Trump has never in the recent past rambled at any point in time.....

Forgive me if I’m wrong but I said a sitting president has never not been elected while the economy has seen an upturn or in very good shape. 2016 no sitting president running as the other years mentioned. The last president not to sit two terms was Bush Snr, who lost to Clinton after recession hit the US in the early 90’s.

Msybe it was slightly blasé to claim he would have “walked it” but the projections were he would have more than likely won the electoral vote again - if not the popular one. There’s still a chance he will - if the BLM protests get out of hand it could play into his hands for example.

Trump has also shown signs of ill health I agree, but I feel Biden’s have been more pronounced

 

[NSWCROW]

America 2020

The least *ed guy should win

 

[Ants]

Forgive me if I’m wrong but I said a sitting president has never not been elected while the economy has seen an upturn or in very good shape. 2016 no sitting president running as the other years mentioned. The last president not to sit two terms was Bush Snr, who lost to Clinton after recession hit the US in the early 90’s.

Msybe it was slightly blasé to claim he would have “walked it” but the projections were he would have more than likely won the electoral vote again - if not the popular one. There’s still a chance he will - if the BLM protests get out of hand it could play into his hands for example.

Trump has also shown signs of ill health I agree, but I feel Biden’s have been more pronounced

If I missed one of your posts you might have said that, but in the ones I quoted you didn't mention sitting president. As to whether without COVID he wins, I think it would have been a toss up. His margin in 2016 was so fine that it wouldn't take much of an increase against him to lose. He may have gained some due to economics, but he might have lost others due to his behaviour. Biden is disliked a LOT less than Hilary, and a lot of Dem 2016 3rd party voters would likely have come 'home' to stop Trump. How the protests would be seen with no COVID might be very different, but no idea if that would help/hurt Trump.

Incumbency is a big factor and indicates Trump would have won. But the flip side is no incumbent, even Bush snr, has had such bad personal likeability 12 months out from an election, ever. Trump is an enigma and breaks norms, I honestly don't know how the 2020 election goes without COVID. Hell, I still think he could win it. COVID may help him if it justifies huge scale voter disenfranchisement like is occurring in Kentucky (?) this week.

We probably should take this to the 45th president thread though.

 

[Chief]

 

[Chief]

And on and on and on...

 

[Fadge]

And on and on and on...

WTF?

Are you saying there shouldn't be any controls around issuance of welfare payments?

Am I missing something here?

 

[iBeng]

WTF?

Are you saying there shouldn't be any controls around issuance of welfare payments?

Am I missing something here?

Basically deaths from the insulation scheme they felt needed a royal commission, but deaths from people taking their life after receiving automated messages from centerlink for money owed dont need any sort of investigating.

 

[Fadge]

Basically deaths from the insulation scheme they felt needed a royal commission, but deaths from people taking their life after receiving automated messages from centerlink for money owed dont need any sort of investigating.

Yes, that's how I read it too.

So what's the answer?

Have a checkbox in Centrelink's system to identify people with suicidal tendencies, and exclude them from reconciliation of welfare payments?

Just a thought... maybe the people who committed suicide at or around the time of receiving the letter from Centrelink, may have had other issues that contributed to their decision to take their lives?

Or do you honestly think it's on Centrelink?

Frig me.

 

[iBeng]

Yes, that's how I read it too.

So what's the answer?

Have a checkbox in Centrelink's system to identify people with suicidal tendencies, and exclude them from reconciliation of welfare payments?

Just a thought... maybe the people who committed suicide at or around the time of receiving the letter from Centrelink, may have had other issues that contributed to their decision to take their lives?

Or do you honestly think it's on Centrelink?

Frig me.

I think its an overall observation of a system that just doesnt work and needs an overhaul.

 

[Fadge]

I think its an overall observation of a system that just doesnt work and needs an overhaul.

Maybe.

But that's a very different angle than making the leap to saying people take their lives because they receive a letter from Centrelink informing them that they owe some money.

 

[Gethelred]

Yes, that's how I read it too.

So what's the answer?

Have a checkbox in Centrelink's system to identify people with suicidal tendencies, and exclude them from reconciliation of welfare payments?

Just a thought... maybe the people who committed suicide at or around the time of receiving the letter from Centrelink, may have had other issues that contributed to their decision to take their lives?

Or do you honestly think it's on Centrelink?

Frig me.

Granted that I give you a lot of s**t Fadge, have you ever been on any Centrelink payments during your life?

 

[Fadge]

Granted that I give you a lot of sh*t Fadge, have you ever been on any Centrelink payments during your life?

Not sure what that has to do with my comments...

 

[Gethelred]

Not sure what that has to do with my comments...

Because you're dismissing the kind of stress the robodebts caused people who were already under stress due to being on the dole.

I have, ergo I'm certainly not going to judge you for it. All I'm saying is that it's one thing to be in debt, and quite another to already be choosing whether to eat or to pay for fuel and then to receive one of these letters.

 

[Chief]

Yes, that's how I read it too.

So what's the answer?

Have a checkbox in Centrelink's system to identify people with suicidal tendencies, and exclude them from reconciliation of welfare payments?

Just a thought... maybe the people who committed suicide at or around the time of receiving the letter from Centrelink, may have had other issues that contributed to their decision to take their lives?

Or do you honestly think it's on Centrelink?

Frig me.

You seem to have leapt to your own preferred conclusion.

The whole program was ILLEGAL.

The government did something ILLEGAL and up to 2,000 people died.

 

[NSWCROW]

Didn't we have a royal commission because some campaigner didn't realise he'd have to drink a shitload of water before he went into a hot roof cavity ?

 

[Fadge]

The government did something ILLEGAL and up to 2,000 people died.

2000 people didn't die because the government did something illegal.

Alarmism much?

Frig me.

 

[Chief]

2000 people didn't die because the government did something illegal.

Alarmism much?

Frig me.

OK boomer.

 

[Chief]

Not to mention financial hardship caused by illegal debt collection.

Fadge this is costing the tax payer - excluding the costs of death and mental illness brought about by this assault on your most vulnerable fellow citizens - about one and a half billion dollars.

Do you think a situation in which illegal actions of government cost one and a half billion dollars should be investigated?

 

[Fadge]

Do you think a situation in which illegal actions of government cost one and a half billion dollars should be investigated?

That is a very different argument to stating there should be a Royal Commission as a result of 2000 people dying because of it.

One is quantifiable, the other is alarmism.

 

[Fadge]

OK boomer.

Solid rebuttal.

 

[Chief]

That is a very different argument to stating there should be a Royal Commission as a result of 2000 people dying because of it.

One is quantifiable, the other is alarmism.

No, both are true - but I picked the one you might respond to.