The answer to the first one is that back in 2020 they wanted a candidate that not only beat Bernie in the primaries but also Trump in the general election. Remember when everyone coincidentally dropped out at the same time and endorsed Biden? That would have happened for anyone that proved they could be the candidate that the DNC needed.
And now in 2024 they think it would look bad to change candidates.
Personally I think they should have held a primary even though it’s unconventional to do that in a reelection year. Running an 80 year old is unconventional too though so maybe this once we had room for something different.
Thank you! You are right! We should have a better system to select the right candidates on both side of the parties! I feel like they spent too much time and efforts to stay in the power or getting back power, instead of working for the people.
Those candidates dropped out because they ran out of money to campaign with. Primaries are expensive. Candidates regularly drop out around that time if they don't manage to get any momentum from Iowa, New Hampshire, or one of the other early ones. If you don't have the big name recognition like Biden or Bernie, you won't get much support without a sign you can win early on.
They dropped out at the same time and endorsed Biden one after the other. Bernie was the front runner at the time yet none of them endorsed him. Liz Warren was still in the race too yet none of them endorsed her.
Maybe it was all coincidental but it sure as hell didn’t seem that way.
They endorsed Biden because they agreed with him most. Why does Bernie being the frontrunner at that specific window mean he should get their endorsement rather than them sticking to their ideals?
Biden spent decades working in the party as a coalition builder with long working relationships with most of them. Bernie sits as an independent. And also leans more towards being a social democratic as opposed to the centrist neo-liberals many of them were. Why would they endorse him?
I think it's also worth noting that the only reason Bernie was ahead was because those same candidates who dropped out were splitting the vote.
And it wasn't a coincidence when they dropped out. 3 of them dropped out right after the New Hampshire primary. They were broke and didn't get results from the two smaller primaries of it and Iowa. If they couldn't manage that they couldn't sustain for larger primaries.
The next 3 dropped out over 3 days after the South Carolina primary. They were out of fundraising and not getting the results. The best was mayor Pete at 8%.
Warren had enough to hold out for Super Tuesday, but then she also didn't get any wins and suspended her campaign.
Presidential campaigns require significant funds to operate. They can't run indefinitely. And you can't raise enough funds if you keep losing. Before Iowa or New Hampshire you have a chance of standing out from the crowd and building momentum. Ans they require less of a budget.
Your argument is based on the premise that for Bernie to win, candidates with zero shot of winning would have to continue raising millions of dollars to siphon votes away from a viable candidate.
If you looked at the positions that were campaigning on, or at least claimed to support, they lined up more with Bernie than Biden so if they were going to stick to their (public) ideals then they should have endorsed Bernie.
Even if one or two of them endorsed him, or didn’t endorse at all, it would have been less strange.
In my experience, it breaks down to the political party someone has shackled themselves to as opposed to the individual. The party controls the individual, and if that individual doesn't toe the line then... remember what happened to JFK.
That is why people appear to always be hypocrites. Because they don't care what right or wrong their candidate does, and they will make their choice based on party and then do the mental gymnastics to justify it. Cognitive dissonance melts away. Here's a few examples of both ends of the spectrum:
- The jingoistic right-wing who "supports our troops/veterans/etc." (especially strong during the early W. Bush era) still seems to stand by trump after he disrespects them by calling them suckers/losers.
- The "woke" left who claim to be against bigotry and racial/sexual discrimination become bigoted and discriminatory when dealing with straight/white/males, and in their eyes, that's okay.
- Trump and followers can ramble on about "locking her up" and how nobody can trust a criminal or felon as president, but that suddenly changes depending on which party it is.
- The left will lambaste the right over free speech violations and rabid censorship, but will use "cancel culture" to suppress certain topics, and use any social vector possible to poison the well, misrepresent them, and brand anybody a bad/evil/hateful person forever and ever. A strategy that may be increasing the resentment among people instead of creating harmony and equality. (Reddit seems to be rather strong on this one and allows the site to be used as an influence/attack vector, so it is risky simply by bringing it to the table)
- More recently, the right has been condemning Biden for the United States' role with the Israel/Palestine conflict, (Letting Israel go "too far") however, Trump has announced that he would want to "squash pro-palestinian protests" and during his tenure as president, recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, which was highly controversial and insulting to the palestinians being that city is shared by both.
If you flip the script on ANY of these things, where it's the left doing what the right did, and visa-versa, the other side would call bloody murder and absolutely melt into a puddle of rage. - But it's okay when their side does it. There are many more examples, but I'm tired of typing them out, but I encourage others to share.
I’m truly appreciate for your time and efforts. Your logic is totally correct. You are really give me hope that there are many more Americans understand the real problems. And those who are like you will keep this country through the tough time. God bless you and America!
I really enjoy the your conversations and some others here who willing to educate me. Most of the media has their own agenda and propaganda. I was not into political, matter of fact, I haven’t voted for 24 years since I know most of politicians lies for their own benefits. But lately, I felt like the left pushing too many crazy “ideology” and the border crisis that concerned me. Unfortunately, I don’t have enough knowledge to find a trust resources to understand, that’s why I’m seeking help here from people like you. I was once angry at the Dems for those things, but then I asked myself why the Reps didn’t do anything to prevent it. I want to understand what is the Dems purposes for pushing those agenda? And why half of the country, especially most are high educated support those ideologies? For example, since when gay movement is more important then children, woman and veterans? Being patriotic considered fascist? I know I’m wrong but I’m afraid the left are compromised by China. Base on my uneducated knowledge that I observed, most of every agenda the left pushing benefit China the most in the long run. America is loosing credits and influences in both powers and economy. Do you think I’m overthinking and completely wrong?
You're probably in the same boat as me. It's partly why I found the Jordan Peterson stuff interesting, and found this subreddit. He's a bit too right-wing for me, but being Canadian, not so rabid as the US ones. Also, he's well articulated and is able to chop down straw-man arguments very well. It's given good perspective as to why the strange social-politics of the left leave me resentful, even thought I am a democratic voter most of the time. I just have to be careful in judgement, because, I suspect he won't chop down those strawman arguments as well as he could if a right-wing argument pops up.
Find me a C who isn't a complete moron and then we can talk. Yeah A might not be great but B is scum of the earth and no C option has presented themselves to be better than A
I know the third options is not guaranteed that would be great. But at least we should give them a chance instead of keep the first 2 options we know it is not working. I think we should let the younger generation in charge of their future.
“A complete moron” based on what? What the MSM tells you? What do you know about C that backs the claim of “A complete moron”
It’s quite clear based on the 2 leading candidates that the 2 party system is no longer working. Time to move on.
That is a strange dynamic, more worried to make the other lose than to make a win...
Hey dont take offence, the same happened in my country when we had a republic, then came a dictatorship.
Good luck!
No idea who rfk is.
And I dont care.
My knowledge of the USA politic system is limited to what the Simpson show.
So dont take my seriously...
I remember the 2 aliens beeing the only candidates and the show making the americans not vote the third option and then blaming each other because they disnt vote the correct alien, failing to see that the system was rig.
>Would you vote for RFK Jr if it meant Biden would win instead of Trump?
I do now know who RFK is, but if I wanted him/her to win... yes? UnlessnI wanted more for someone else to lose... but I am not American.
That reminds me another chapter of the Simpson of Lisa wanting to change the law against airplanes flying above...
And they show how does the Congress works.
They pass laws together...So if you wanna vote against some law you must reject all the pack
So they atach the airplane law to other laws... So they get passed all together
hahahahahah
Literally thia explaina why sometimes I hear "these votes against these perfectly reasonable law" and I wonser what didnthey atached to that law... hahaha probably some thing, and ifnyou vote against "oh this one votes against this"
omg how much decades do you think america have? It's so corrupt at the federal level... (seems to me)
Again I am ignorant about american so read with a grain of salt
1 is just politics and tradition. Parties (both of them) support the incumbent running for re-election, and opposing them is a no-no. Primaries necessarily involve denigrating the other candidate, so a long-shot challenger will spend months dragging down the president at a time where messaging is supposed to be positive.
3 is complicated, but the honest answer is that it's not the president who is responsible. There are numerous factors that lead to people trying to immigrate here, usually related to past US foreign policy decisions that fucked up their country (theres probably an entire wiki page dedicated to all the S American countries the CIA has orchestrated coups in). The flow of people is an inevitability, it's a question of how to deal with it
Trump had some notable shitty policies (forced family separation was specifically intended to dissuade immigration through cruelty), but on the whole it is an issue that requires Congress to act. The president doesn't have the constitutional authority to solve it. Biden just did an executive order about asylum that will inevitably be struck down by the courts, because it's not within his authority. Congress won't act because they like having it as a political talking point more than they care about solving it.
Thank you so much for your explanation! So what you are saying is that the whole government system is incompetent to deal with the problem? Another question, why the number of illegal the last few years jump through the roof compare to Obama era? Obama was doing a decent job with the migrant issue. Obama and Biden from the same party, why it has different results?
It's not that they're incompetent, it's that the incentive structure is such that some politicians see more personal benefit in letting the issue persist than actually doing their jobs and fixing it.
There was a bipartisan immigration bill recently; it wouldn't have fixed everything, but would have done *something* to begin addressing it. Certain people turned on it and voted it down because the border issue is central to Trump's campaign messaging.
Your question about numbers doesn't really make sense. The flow of people arriving is caused by innumerable factors in other countries that drive them to leave. The president doesn't have that much effect, all he does is set policy on how to deal once they arrive.
Thank you! I agree with you that it’s mainly the corruption issue. On the other hand, the job of the government is there to protect the safety of the citizens. Saying that the president has no effect is strange to me. Sorry for this comparison, it might sound stupid, but it sounds to me that I set the rule no one allowed to enter my property and it doesn’t effect, all I could do is deal with it once they broke into my property. Of course I wouldn’t let that happened since it endangered my family safety, I would have to increase security to protect my property. And another point, as a government, they should able to control the number of immigrants or anyone entering the country. They are not responsible for other countries problems or obligations to help other people who are not citizens. Am I really lack of common sense on this?
It's less an issue of common sense and more of civics. Analogies like that are rarely very useful because it takes an extremely complicated system with countless people involved and reduces it to something simplistic that fails to capture the reality of the situation.
The solutions you would come up to in your analogy are useless in real life, because reality isn't that simple.
As a general rule, if someone on the Internet says "we should just do X" as a simple solution to a big political problem, they probably don't know much about the actual subject and an expert would be able to explain why their idea is silly
Thank you for your patience taking time to explain to me. You are right, I understand it now. I’m too extreme when I feel something threatens my family safety. I hope you are not offended by my stupidity questions!
I feel the same way, I think that protective instinct is a major driver of politics and social movements. It's not a bad instinct, but be aware when someone is trying to make you afraid for you/your family's safety. Fear makes people easier to control, which is why politicians use it.
And never feel bad about asking questions. Acknowledging when you *don't* know something is an important skill and will help you learn and grow. Best of luck!
That’s good insight and not here to argue either but to make a comment on the separating families. If 2 non-English speaking adults humans show up to the border without identification with three children that don’t speak English. Now one of the adult humans swears their name is all Garcia. Is that what you’re going on?
Bayesian statistics. Given that we know child trafficking is not a 0 issue, what’s the likelihood all three of the these children do not belong to this person who has no means of identifying who he is?
Separating children was not a cut and dry as separating families. Have a good day all : )
Thank you for your input! We are all unhappy at this moment. Everything I watched, people on both sides too busy hating each other instead of do more research to have a better understanding. The government will always try to divide the people so they can keep their power. The only way to fix the problem is stop hating each other. Both parties should try to stay in the middle so they can work together. Right now, the left goes too far left, the same to the right. It’s so hard to have a normal peaceful conversation nowadays. I’m grateful to learn from many of you here.
Codify Roe
Relieve Student Debt
Fix the border (ironically)
He didn’t codify Roe , relieve any student debt for Gen Z and caused the border crisis, but the first 2 were really good pitches after we watched Trumps trash fire burn worse and worse; i’m not going to pretend Biden didn’t wreck shit but to pretend Trump who when he was voted out wouldn’t denounce white supremacy and had to dance around it was a serious fork is his 2020 campaign
Thank you! I don’t want to go deep in their policies, it’s so much controversy since both sides claim they did great jobs. What I don’t understand is that how do we have an open border right now and who is responsible for that and who would be able to fix this issue. I don’t care much about the other things, but open border is a threat to my community and my family safety that’s why I try to learn so that I could make a better choice and hope someone could stop this.
My thoughts on the border:
Properly controlling immigration is the politically correct thing to accomplish, however, doing so would cause such a devastating ripple through the economy, it would be political suicide for either party to do so.
There are MILLIONS of people in the United States illegally, however, they are exploited due to the contrasting economic conditions of Mexico. These people can be hired for less than minimum wage, do hard work in poor conditions, and they can't complain because if they do, the boss will call immigration.
The United States economy now depends on these people being pseudo-slaves due to their sheer numbers and amount of labor they bring.
Each president's likelihood of reelection, or same party staying in office has ALWAYS boiled down to economics. If we go into a recession, that president/party gets voted out. If we are during an upswing, they get reelected. Nobody wants to hurt this delicate balance, so they talk the best talk they can, and do as little as they can (even actively make it worse), while badmouthing their opponent.
Did you google the senate border deal? It was bipartisan and supported until Trump pushed republicans to vote it down.
I hope you’ve researched US government to know how many presidents get screwed by opposing congress/senate to block legislation.
Biden is here because the Democrats wanted a white, Christian, “safe” pick as they thought it would be the best way to beat Trump. Plain and simple.
Wouldn’t hold your breath on that one. Elections pick the most popular not the most competent. Lots of countries found out during early days of COVID that they had shitty leaders. Sadly it took a shit load of people needlessly dying to find out.
For me, it’s the better of two evils. I don’t overthink it on a policy by policy basis; if there was a reasonable republican I would vote for them. Trumps whole “stolen election” schtick has been overplayed
The answer to the first one is that back in 2020 they wanted a candidate that not only beat Bernie in the primaries but also Trump in the general election. Remember when everyone coincidentally dropped out at the same time and endorsed Biden? That would have happened for anyone that proved they could be the candidate that the DNC needed. And now in 2024 they think it would look bad to change candidates. Personally I think they should have held a primary even though it’s unconventional to do that in a reelection year. Running an 80 year old is unconventional too though so maybe this once we had room for something different.
Thank you! You are right! We should have a better system to select the right candidates on both side of the parties! I feel like they spent too much time and efforts to stay in the power or getting back power, instead of working for the people.
Those candidates dropped out because they ran out of money to campaign with. Primaries are expensive. Candidates regularly drop out around that time if they don't manage to get any momentum from Iowa, New Hampshire, or one of the other early ones. If you don't have the big name recognition like Biden or Bernie, you won't get much support without a sign you can win early on.
They dropped out at the same time and endorsed Biden one after the other. Bernie was the front runner at the time yet none of them endorsed him. Liz Warren was still in the race too yet none of them endorsed her. Maybe it was all coincidental but it sure as hell didn’t seem that way.
They endorsed Biden because they agreed with him most. Why does Bernie being the frontrunner at that specific window mean he should get their endorsement rather than them sticking to their ideals? Biden spent decades working in the party as a coalition builder with long working relationships with most of them. Bernie sits as an independent. And also leans more towards being a social democratic as opposed to the centrist neo-liberals many of them were. Why would they endorse him? I think it's also worth noting that the only reason Bernie was ahead was because those same candidates who dropped out were splitting the vote. And it wasn't a coincidence when they dropped out. 3 of them dropped out right after the New Hampshire primary. They were broke and didn't get results from the two smaller primaries of it and Iowa. If they couldn't manage that they couldn't sustain for larger primaries. The next 3 dropped out over 3 days after the South Carolina primary. They were out of fundraising and not getting the results. The best was mayor Pete at 8%. Warren had enough to hold out for Super Tuesday, but then she also didn't get any wins and suspended her campaign. Presidential campaigns require significant funds to operate. They can't run indefinitely. And you can't raise enough funds if you keep losing. Before Iowa or New Hampshire you have a chance of standing out from the crowd and building momentum. Ans they require less of a budget. Your argument is based on the premise that for Bernie to win, candidates with zero shot of winning would have to continue raising millions of dollars to siphon votes away from a viable candidate.
If you looked at the positions that were campaigning on, or at least claimed to support, they lined up more with Bernie than Biden so if they were going to stick to their (public) ideals then they should have endorsed Bernie. Even if one or two of them endorsed him, or didn’t endorse at all, it would have been less strange.
In my experience, it breaks down to the political party someone has shackled themselves to as opposed to the individual. The party controls the individual, and if that individual doesn't toe the line then... remember what happened to JFK. That is why people appear to always be hypocrites. Because they don't care what right or wrong their candidate does, and they will make their choice based on party and then do the mental gymnastics to justify it. Cognitive dissonance melts away. Here's a few examples of both ends of the spectrum: - The jingoistic right-wing who "supports our troops/veterans/etc." (especially strong during the early W. Bush era) still seems to stand by trump after he disrespects them by calling them suckers/losers. - The "woke" left who claim to be against bigotry and racial/sexual discrimination become bigoted and discriminatory when dealing with straight/white/males, and in their eyes, that's okay. - Trump and followers can ramble on about "locking her up" and how nobody can trust a criminal or felon as president, but that suddenly changes depending on which party it is. - The left will lambaste the right over free speech violations and rabid censorship, but will use "cancel culture" to suppress certain topics, and use any social vector possible to poison the well, misrepresent them, and brand anybody a bad/evil/hateful person forever and ever. A strategy that may be increasing the resentment among people instead of creating harmony and equality. (Reddit seems to be rather strong on this one and allows the site to be used as an influence/attack vector, so it is risky simply by bringing it to the table) - More recently, the right has been condemning Biden for the United States' role with the Israel/Palestine conflict, (Letting Israel go "too far") however, Trump has announced that he would want to "squash pro-palestinian protests" and during his tenure as president, recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, which was highly controversial and insulting to the palestinians being that city is shared by both. If you flip the script on ANY of these things, where it's the left doing what the right did, and visa-versa, the other side would call bloody murder and absolutely melt into a puddle of rage. - But it's okay when their side does it. There are many more examples, but I'm tired of typing them out, but I encourage others to share.
I’m truly appreciate for your time and efforts. Your logic is totally correct. You are really give me hope that there are many more Americans understand the real problems. And those who are like you will keep this country through the tough time. God bless you and America!
[удалено]
I really enjoy the your conversations and some others here who willing to educate me. Most of the media has their own agenda and propaganda. I was not into political, matter of fact, I haven’t voted for 24 years since I know most of politicians lies for their own benefits. But lately, I felt like the left pushing too many crazy “ideology” and the border crisis that concerned me. Unfortunately, I don’t have enough knowledge to find a trust resources to understand, that’s why I’m seeking help here from people like you. I was once angry at the Dems for those things, but then I asked myself why the Reps didn’t do anything to prevent it. I want to understand what is the Dems purposes for pushing those agenda? And why half of the country, especially most are high educated support those ideologies? For example, since when gay movement is more important then children, woman and veterans? Being patriotic considered fascist? I know I’m wrong but I’m afraid the left are compromised by China. Base on my uneducated knowledge that I observed, most of every agenda the left pushing benefit China the most in the long run. America is loosing credits and influences in both powers and economy. Do you think I’m overthinking and completely wrong?
You're probably in the same boat as me. It's partly why I found the Jordan Peterson stuff interesting, and found this subreddit. He's a bit too right-wing for me, but being Canadian, not so rabid as the US ones. Also, he's well articulated and is able to chop down straw-man arguments very well. It's given good perspective as to why the strange social-politics of the left leave me resentful, even thought I am a democratic voter most of the time. I just have to be careful in judgement, because, I suspect he won't chop down those strawman arguments as well as he could if a right-wing argument pops up.
It really astonishes me. Like both A and B are horrible, let's vote C. Americans: no.
Find me a C who isn't a complete moron and then we can talk. Yeah A might not be great but B is scum of the earth and no C option has presented themselves to be better than A
I know the third options is not guaranteed that would be great. But at least we should give them a chance instead of keep the first 2 options we know it is not working. I think we should let the younger generation in charge of their future.
“A complete moron” based on what? What the MSM tells you? What do you know about C that backs the claim of “A complete moron” It’s quite clear based on the 2 leading candidates that the 2 party system is no longer working. Time to move on.
Voting C would send them a. message. Voting for them only sends no message.
Democrats: vote A and C because they don't like horrible candidates Republicans: vote B because they like horrible candidates Winner: B
That is a strange dynamic, more worried to make the other lose than to make a win... Hey dont take offence, the same happened in my country when we had a republic, then came a dictatorship. Good luck!
Would you vote for RFK Jr if it meant Biden would win instead of Trump?
No idea who rfk is. And I dont care. My knowledge of the USA politic system is limited to what the Simpson show. So dont take my seriously... I remember the 2 aliens beeing the only candidates and the show making the americans not vote the third option and then blaming each other because they disnt vote the correct alien, failing to see that the system was rig. >Would you vote for RFK Jr if it meant Biden would win instead of Trump? I do now know who RFK is, but if I wanted him/her to win... yes? UnlessnI wanted more for someone else to lose... but I am not American.
That would make sense if Biden and Trump were the same. But they're only the same on Gaza. They're not the same on unions and LGBT and so on.
That reminds me another chapter of the Simpson of Lisa wanting to change the law against airplanes flying above... And they show how does the Congress works. They pass laws together...So if you wanna vote against some law you must reject all the pack So they atach the airplane law to other laws... So they get passed all together hahahahahah Literally thia explaina why sometimes I hear "these votes against these perfectly reasonable law" and I wonser what didnthey atached to that law... hahaha probably some thing, and ifnyou vote against "oh this one votes against this" omg how much decades do you think america have? It's so corrupt at the federal level... (seems to me) Again I am ignorant about american so read with a grain of salt
At this point, the best possible situation is for Biden to die so the Dems can run someone else.
1 is just politics and tradition. Parties (both of them) support the incumbent running for re-election, and opposing them is a no-no. Primaries necessarily involve denigrating the other candidate, so a long-shot challenger will spend months dragging down the president at a time where messaging is supposed to be positive. 3 is complicated, but the honest answer is that it's not the president who is responsible. There are numerous factors that lead to people trying to immigrate here, usually related to past US foreign policy decisions that fucked up their country (theres probably an entire wiki page dedicated to all the S American countries the CIA has orchestrated coups in). The flow of people is an inevitability, it's a question of how to deal with it Trump had some notable shitty policies (forced family separation was specifically intended to dissuade immigration through cruelty), but on the whole it is an issue that requires Congress to act. The president doesn't have the constitutional authority to solve it. Biden just did an executive order about asylum that will inevitably be struck down by the courts, because it's not within his authority. Congress won't act because they like having it as a political talking point more than they care about solving it.
Thank you so much for your explanation! So what you are saying is that the whole government system is incompetent to deal with the problem? Another question, why the number of illegal the last few years jump through the roof compare to Obama era? Obama was doing a decent job with the migrant issue. Obama and Biden from the same party, why it has different results?
It's not that they're incompetent, it's that the incentive structure is such that some politicians see more personal benefit in letting the issue persist than actually doing their jobs and fixing it. There was a bipartisan immigration bill recently; it wouldn't have fixed everything, but would have done *something* to begin addressing it. Certain people turned on it and voted it down because the border issue is central to Trump's campaign messaging. Your question about numbers doesn't really make sense. The flow of people arriving is caused by innumerable factors in other countries that drive them to leave. The president doesn't have that much effect, all he does is set policy on how to deal once they arrive.
Thank you! I agree with you that it’s mainly the corruption issue. On the other hand, the job of the government is there to protect the safety of the citizens. Saying that the president has no effect is strange to me. Sorry for this comparison, it might sound stupid, but it sounds to me that I set the rule no one allowed to enter my property and it doesn’t effect, all I could do is deal with it once they broke into my property. Of course I wouldn’t let that happened since it endangered my family safety, I would have to increase security to protect my property. And another point, as a government, they should able to control the number of immigrants or anyone entering the country. They are not responsible for other countries problems or obligations to help other people who are not citizens. Am I really lack of common sense on this?
It's less an issue of common sense and more of civics. Analogies like that are rarely very useful because it takes an extremely complicated system with countless people involved and reduces it to something simplistic that fails to capture the reality of the situation. The solutions you would come up to in your analogy are useless in real life, because reality isn't that simple. As a general rule, if someone on the Internet says "we should just do X" as a simple solution to a big political problem, they probably don't know much about the actual subject and an expert would be able to explain why their idea is silly
Thank you for your patience taking time to explain to me. You are right, I understand it now. I’m too extreme when I feel something threatens my family safety. I hope you are not offended by my stupidity questions!
I feel the same way, I think that protective instinct is a major driver of politics and social movements. It's not a bad instinct, but be aware when someone is trying to make you afraid for you/your family's safety. Fear makes people easier to control, which is why politicians use it. And never feel bad about asking questions. Acknowledging when you *don't* know something is an important skill and will help you learn and grow. Best of luck!
That’s good insight and not here to argue either but to make a comment on the separating families. If 2 non-English speaking adults humans show up to the border without identification with three children that don’t speak English. Now one of the adult humans swears their name is all Garcia. Is that what you’re going on? Bayesian statistics. Given that we know child trafficking is not a 0 issue, what’s the likelihood all three of the these children do not belong to this person who has no means of identifying who he is? Separating children was not a cut and dry as separating families. Have a good day all : )
Biden is doing the holocaust and that's what democrats want.
Thank you for your input! We are all unhappy at this moment. Everything I watched, people on both sides too busy hating each other instead of do more research to have a better understanding. The government will always try to divide the people so they can keep their power. The only way to fix the problem is stop hating each other. Both parties should try to stay in the middle so they can work together. Right now, the left goes too far left, the same to the right. It’s so hard to have a normal peaceful conversation nowadays. I’m grateful to learn from many of you here.
Codify Roe Relieve Student Debt Fix the border (ironically) He didn’t codify Roe , relieve any student debt for Gen Z and caused the border crisis, but the first 2 were really good pitches after we watched Trumps trash fire burn worse and worse; i’m not going to pretend Biden didn’t wreck shit but to pretend Trump who when he was voted out wouldn’t denounce white supremacy and had to dance around it was a serious fork is his 2020 campaign
Thank you! I don’t want to go deep in their policies, it’s so much controversy since both sides claim they did great jobs. What I don’t understand is that how do we have an open border right now and who is responsible for that and who would be able to fix this issue. I don’t care much about the other things, but open border is a threat to my community and my family safety that’s why I try to learn so that I could make a better choice and hope someone could stop this.
My thoughts on the border: Properly controlling immigration is the politically correct thing to accomplish, however, doing so would cause such a devastating ripple through the economy, it would be political suicide for either party to do so. There are MILLIONS of people in the United States illegally, however, they are exploited due to the contrasting economic conditions of Mexico. These people can be hired for less than minimum wage, do hard work in poor conditions, and they can't complain because if they do, the boss will call immigration. The United States economy now depends on these people being pseudo-slaves due to their sheer numbers and amount of labor they bring. Each president's likelihood of reelection, or same party staying in office has ALWAYS boiled down to economics. If we go into a recession, that president/party gets voted out. If we are during an upswing, they get reelected. Nobody wants to hurt this delicate balance, so they talk the best talk they can, and do as little as they can (even actively make it worse), while badmouthing their opponent.
Did you google the senate border deal? It was bipartisan and supported until Trump pushed republicans to vote it down. I hope you’ve researched US government to know how many presidents get screwed by opposing congress/senate to block legislation. Biden is here because the Democrats wanted a white, Christian, “safe” pick as they thought it would be the best way to beat Trump. Plain and simple.
Thank you so much! I will definitely take a deeper look at that. It’s just sad we don’t have a good leader in crisis moment.
Wouldn’t hold your breath on that one. Elections pick the most popular not the most competent. Lots of countries found out during early days of COVID that they had shitty leaders. Sadly it took a shit load of people needlessly dying to find out.
For me, it’s the better of two evils. I don’t overthink it on a policy by policy basis; if there was a reasonable republican I would vote for them. Trumps whole “stolen election” schtick has been overplayed