The US Presidential Election Thread

[Chadwiko]

Why do you imply I deny that cost of living wasn't a factor? I've never said that.

I'm pushing back on your claims that democrats lost because they focused on trans rights and identity politics instead of focusing on the working class

Because;

a) they didn't even do that
b) that would be a lot easier to believe if the winner of the election wasn't a billionaire surrounded by billionaires.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Yeah you've been saying it, and you've been wrong.

It was the Democrats who led the charge for Women's Suffrage.
It was the Democrats who led the Civil Right's movement.
It was the Democrats who ended segregation and Jim Crow laws.
It was the Democrats who led the repeals of anti-miscegenation laws.
It was the Democrats who led the charge for gay rights, including letting them serve in the military.
It was the Democrats who led the charge for marriage equality.

This notion that the Democrats haven't been consistent in pushing what you call "identity politics" is flat out nonsense, and shows how ignorant you are on the topic.

By the way? Republicans rallied hard against every single one of those things I listed, and used the type of excuses and justifications that you, ferball, Val, and Bojan like to use now against trans people.

More sweeping generalisations.

A republican senator in Kansas introduced the first federal womens suffrage amendment in congress.
Victoria Woodhull was the first woman to run for president. She ran as an independent. She argued that women already had the right to vote under the 14th amendment.
California senator AA Sargeant introduced the Woman Suffrage Amendment into Congress with the support of Elizabeth Stanton, the leader of the National Woman Suffrage Association. The bulk of the wording in this amendment became the 19th Amendment to the us constitution. AA Sergeant was a republican.
Teddy Roosevelt, a former republican running as an independent with the bull moose party, was the fist national major political part to support womens suffrage.
Woodrow Wilson refused to actively support the Suffrage Amendment.

That is your first point destroyed. Given your lack of knowledge it is likely the rest of your post is garbage too.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Was it $1.3-1.5B spent by the Harris campaign vs about $350M by Trump?

 

[Chadwiko]

Was it $1.3-1.5B spent by the Harris campaign vs about $350M by Trump?

Because Democrats spent the money themselves. Donald and MAGA were funded by super-pacs.

Elon alone spent $200m.

Nice try though.

Elon Musk’s Super Pac spent $200m to help elect Donald Trump

Billionaire provided vast majority of funds to America Pac in winning bid to return Trump to White House

www.theguardian.com

 

[Chadwiko]

Abraham Lincoln weren't no Democrat lol.

Where'd I list anything that involved Lincoln?

 

[Chadwiko]

You really have no idea about US history do you.

What is it you think Lincoln had to do with anything I listed?

You and Bojan can cherry-pick things all you like. My list was factual.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

What is it you think Lincoln had to do with anything I listed?

You and Bojan can cherry-pick things all you like. My list was factual.

At no point did a democrat lead the charge for womans suffrage

 

[Chadwiko]

So factual you had to ignore the bit about how Republicans led the fight for women's suffrage in the face of determined Democrat opposition lol.

You pasted lines from Wikipedia. Congratulations on your 12 second google search to try and pass yourself off as knowledgeable on the subject.

Unfortunately, as usual, you've come up quite short.

 

[Chadwiko]

You'll never lose an argument if you just invent your own alternative facts.

Or if you just invent your own arguments, hey?

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Because Democrats spent the money themselves. Donald and MAGA were funded by super-pacs.

Elon alone spent $200m.

Nice try though.

Elon Musk’s Super Pac spent $200m to help elect Donald Trump

Billionaire provided vast majority of funds to America Pac in winning bid to return Trump to White House

www.theguardian.com

To be fair, we were both wrong. lol at the guardian.

Donald Trump and Kamala Harris spend $3.5bn in most expensive presidential election

FT analysis of campaign filings shows candidates raised $4.2bn in race for White House

www.ft.com

 

[Bojan KantKick]

You pasted lines from Wikipedia. Congratulations on your 12 second google search to try and pass yourself off as knowledgeable on the subject.

Unfortunately, as usual, you've come up quite short.

Easy unbiased reference point for you - https://www.americanbar.org/groups/...endment-centennial/toolkit/suffrage-timeline/

 

[Chadwiko]

Also, that's not Wikpedia.

Why do you lie about such easily disprovable things? Is it a mental compulsion for you?

Is this why you keep lying about me ever approaching the media to "bag the club"? Because you know the real facts don't support your weird vendetta so you just invent things in your mind so you can position yourself as the main-character once again?

Weird dude. Super weird.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Don't know if it works the same in Aus but in the UK you can create petitions which if they reach a certain size can be debated in parliament/attract a formal government response.

Someone set up a petition as per the below:

Call a General Election​

I would like there to be another General Election.
I believe the current Labour Government have gone back on the promises they laid out in the lead up to the last election.

They have received a touch under 2.6m votes so far. We saw these polls after Boris was elected but they didn't have this much support. Two things stand out to me. What an absolute shitshow this UK govt is and how much additional voter turnout could be achieved by making it easier for people to vote on election day.

Petition: Call a General Election

I would like there to be another General Election. I believe the current Labour Government have gone back on the promises they laid out in the lead up to the last election.

petition.parliament.uk

 

[Chadwiko]

LOL, yes, the second bit is, the first isn't.

Cool, so you lied.

Just to be clear though here ... it wasn't Democrats that led the charge on women's suffrage right.

Like, you do accept that is a fact?

Well, actually it was.

You keep trying to over-simplify it by ignoring the facts of the situation. The 'Democrats' were in reality two separate parties back in those days. The Democrats, and the Southern Democrats.

The Southern Democrats (whose policies all align neatly with the Republican party of today) opposed suffrage, but the rest of the Democrats supported it. And what's more, there's strong arguments to be made that the ratification of the 19th amendment is what directly led to the loss of power and influence of the Southern Democrats. They didn't hold any power in federal government after 1920~, and the rise of FDR and the 'New Deal Democrats' in the 1930s basically saw them finished as a bloc of any significance. This is a good thing.

 

[Chadwiko]

Don't know if it works the same in Aus but in the UK you can create petitions which if they reach a certain size can be debated in parliament/attract a formal government response.

Someone set up a petition as per the below:

Call a General Election​

I would like there to be another General Election.
I believe the current Labour Government have gone back on the promises they laid out in the lead up to the last election.

They have received a touch under 2.6m votes so far. We saw these polls after Boris was elected but they didn't have this much support. Two things stand out to me. What an absolute shitshow this UK govt is and how much additional voter turnout could be achieved by making it easier for people to vote on election day.

Petition: Call a General Election

I would like there to be another General Election. I believe the current Labour Government have gone back on the promises they laid out in the lead up to the last election.

petition.parliament.uk

Damn, if only there was some sort of system where we could let the people decide who should lead the government?
We could ask everyone to have a say, some sort of "vote" or something? And we could count the votes in some sort of "election"? And that way, we can make sure that the majority of people get the government they vote for.

 

[Chadwiko]

Honestly, "oh you went to Wikipedia to prove me wrong, hah, I win" is one of the funniest things ever.

Have a good night all, champagne comedy.

I like how you deleted your posts where you denied doing this, before realising you were caught out, and now you try and play it off like this as you slink away.

Now that is champagne comedy.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Damn, if only there was some sort of system where we could let the people decide who should lead the government?
We could ask everyone to have a say, some sort of "vote" or something? And we could count the votes in some sort of "election"? And that way, we can make sure that the majority of people get the government they vote for.

That is your conclusion from my post? I thought you were a Ukraine supporter?

I truly look forward to Starmer being voted out and the Labour Party being reformed. I'd be surprised if he made it that far though. He'll be knifed in the back soon enough.

Hopefully a secure system is developed where people can vote on their phones to increase turnout.

 

[Chadwiko]

Yes I'm aware - more than you - of the history.

LOL it kills you to be challenged doesn't it. You just have to believe you're the main character and the smartest guy in the room.

Amazing stuff.

Just take an L for once in your life, most of what you posted was correct, just not the suffrage stuff.

Oh the irony.

"Most of what you posted was correct"... and yet you've spent an entire forum page screeching at me over nitpicks on one item out of a list of many because you're desperate for a win. "Just take the L"? How about you stop 'chasing the dragon' of what you perceive to be "pwning" someone over nitpicky points? You're like a junkie. You can't help yourself.

In reality it was a bipartisan effort.

The final ratification vote in congress? Yes, it was. And Republicans had the majority and therefore had more 'Yay' votes than the Democrats.

But I wasn't only talking about the ratification vote. I was talking about the 50~ years of campaigning and advocacy that preceded it.

 

[Del191229]

The final ratification vote in congress? Yes, it was. And Republicans had the majority and therefore had more 'Yay' votes than the Democrats.

Thank you.

 

[Chadwiko]

... sending stuff to people to try and turn them against me.

Oh man, you are an unstoppable irony machine tonight.

Hey just a quick question for you. Bit of a 'touch-base' type of situation;

How many times have you had the 2023 membership situation explained to you in plain english? Yet you still push the 'Chad went to the media to bag the club' lie over and over so much that others have started parrotting it for you;

Because a funny thing happened on the way to the party, but now is not the time for that

Please. You don't get invited to parties lol.

 

[Chadwiko]

It was the Democrats who led the charge for Women's Suffrage.

But I wasn't only talking about the ratification vote. I was talking about the 50~ years of campaigning and advocacy that preceded it.

"Take the L, dude".

 

[DesertRoo]

Unless we go back to the days of the federalist party vs democrat-Republicans, we’ll never know, might as throw in the Whig’s too

 

[DesertRoo]

That is your conclusion from my post? I thought you were a Ukraine supporter?

I truly look forward to Starmer being voted out and the Labour Party being reformed. I'd be surprised if he made it that far though. He'll be knifed in the back soon enough.

Hopefully a secure system is developed where people can vote on their phones to increase turnout.

Vote on their phones?
Yeah that won’t be rigged at all.

 

[Chadwiko]

Unless we go back to the days of the federalist party vs democrat-Republicans, we’ll never know, might as throw in the Whig’s too

Yes, I actually concur with you here.

I'm not saying the 'Democrats' of 100+ years ago are the same as the Democrats of today.

The Republicans under Lincoln are the polar opposite of the modern Republicans.

 

[DesertRoo]

Yes, I actually concur with you here.

I'm not saying the 'Democrats' of 100+ years ago are the same as the Democrats of today.

The Republicans under Lincoln are the polar opposite of the modern Republicans.

Lincoln being a Whig?
Nah, he supported tariffs to develop American industry.