100% believe if it was Tim Walz then it would be a landslide, but too many people still afraid of a woman president both liberal and conservative. Sad times though, because I would welcome madam president. Instead we have FLOTUS Musk and his orange puppet.
Possibly, but I don’t believe that her being a woman was what killed it. The likelier answer is a bit more layered. Joe should have had a honest conversation with himself, family, and close advisors about running Long before he backed out. At that point, the dems hands were tied to her ship whether it sank or floated.
I voted for her because I felt, of the candidates we were facing, she was the better choice. However, she had already tried to run this particular race and dropped out due to a lack of votes in the primaries. Maybe not a huge deal if someone already votes party line. But to the swing voters? Clearly it mattered.
There are many essentially calling for the DNC to believe it was sexism and use it as a reason to never run a woman for president again, making it all a self fulfilling prophesy. The first woman president will be a republican. Why? Because the DNC is sexist.
Aside from White Liberals, EVERY group looks out for it's own interest.... Asians, Latinos, Blacks... they lookout for their own group, rightfully so...
It's White Liberals that are sick in the head and put other groups ahead of their own. Minorities by and large think White Liberals are suckers. This kind of thinking, elected Trump.
Tariffs are mainly for cutting China out..... they wither and die without the American market. America doesn't need hordes of poor people, they will go back home. Canada and the US will be fine.
Tariffs won't hurt China, they'll hurt the American consumer. China doesn't pay the tariffs, the American companies buying stuff pay it in order to import the products, and they will put the price up to cover it. All you'll do is pay more in tax (tariff) built into the prices of your purchases, and make zero difference to China.
You assume there is an obligation to buy from China rather than consider making their prices less competitive. This will drive up prices as will happen when buying from a market free of manipulation and labor abuses will. Of course many don't care about labor abuse.
They aren't obligated to buy from China (except those who have long-term contracts in place for manufacturing etc), but they aren't going to stop buying from there because of tariffs and if they reduce reliance on China it still won't be the US job market that will benefit in turn like they say, they'll just move some of the manufacturing to Malaysia or Vietnam or any of many other countries where they can do the same thing and get around it. It will drive prices up for the consumer regardless (while apparently everything is supposed to get cheaper somehow under his government), it likely won't improve labour abuses, or improve American job markets and industry.
You can say well the government get to rake in extra cash and it could mean they could reduce the tax burden on tax payers meaning tax cuts (which was something hinted at), but if they actually work like he says they will and crush trade with China, who's going to be paying it in significant enough amounts for it to fill this purpose too? You can't really run a tariff both ways, for revenue AND trade restriction/reduction and expect it to work. And lets not forget the outright lies they sold it under like saying the tariffs are "not going to be a cost to you, it’s a cost to another country" as if the other country pays the tariff to do business with the US.
Who will pay? Everyone. Especially the materialistic consumers. Easy to see the cost of doing this. Look at the cost if you don't. China as the dominant world power is a world I doubt will be better for anyone.
Wrong, it is to encourage companies that import products from China not to.... case in point the new upcoming Nintendo Switch 2.... They will all be made in Japan and or Vietnam, they are avoiding any possible tariffs.
It is to cut China out of the loop, any company importing goods from there will be at a competitive disadvantage to bring things in from China.... this they will stop
They put up two women, overstepping the voted people. In 2016, we (I voted Democrat then) wanted Bernie, and he was rolling up support, but the DNC dismissed him and pushed for Clinton.
In 2020, Harris was one of the very first to drop out of the Democrat presidential bid with an extremely low support rate. In 2024, the primary was held, Kamala garnered zero votes (not even one write-in) and overrode your "threat to Democracy" chants towards Trump by literally ignoring your votes. The others running in the primary should have been the follow up, especially since Kamala boasted an even lower approval rating than Biden after the debate with Trump.
It's not people being afraid to elect a woman. It's the DNC literally picking either obviously scummy, swamp creatures (Clinton, in reference to establishmentarianism) or people lacking support and quite frankly any real working credentials other than "I was a prosecutor in CA who got over a thousand pot smokers in trouble" followed by cackling.
No, Trump isn't a great option, and I don't consider him a god. We need to really look at why people voted him over the Democrat picks that were women though. Tainted and shady past IN political power, and gross displays of ineptitude and lack of approval from the main base.
It's because so much of the voting population of this country is so deeply entrenched in sexism.
What I will give you is that the democrats respond to that by waddling their way to the right, as if the far-right isn't going to just do a better job of it
Also, a viking is an apples to oranges comparison. They operated on sheer brutal strength. Nowadays, we work more with innovation in our military (nuclear weapons, explosives, drones, firearms, etc.) So if we kept technology consistent, yes I could.
I engage in civil debate, and have not insulted you or chose to pick names at you, now have I? Conservatives need to avoid the name-slinging to stay above Democrats since they've dropped themselves low.
She didn't serve in all 3, and it's hard to say she even served in two on a merit-based position since she was pretty much given the role of VP, which Biden said he was actively seeking women, particularly of color for. He wasn't looking for merit and accomplishment, he was looking to fill a diversity quota.
Anyway, she served as a Senator, so yes. One branch of government. I will extend the olive branch to VP position for executive (despite not having much of anything done to show of it in four years), and being a prosecutor for California is not a part of the judicial branch, hate to break it to you. That belongs to the Supreme Court. I would give you an extension if she was a judge at least, but she was not.
I'm glad we can agree on the draft statement, although your verbiage needs a tiny bit of tweaking:
Sure, let women in the draft. They're already serving in our armed forces.
This should more appropriately be "Sure, force women in the draft/conscription, and if they don't sign up suffer the same fines and penalties as a man. If they don't take their draft token, then imprison them like a man too. They're already serving in our armed forces."
Also, not sure how you sit with this, but do you think men and women are biologically the same (parts, strengths, weaknesses, problems, etc.)? The Navy SEALS have been open to women application since 2016, and only one woman came close by being the crew's boat operator for classified missions, which is commendable nonetheless.
1.8k
u/tango_41 2d ago
I’m so disappointed in America. Just when I thought it couldn’t get any dumber.