Brummie is having a nuclear meltdown. All we need is for him to think it's a good idea and record it.
He says nuclear power is dangerous...pick whatever word you want, but whatever he thinks, he's wrong. https://world-nuclear.org/informati...ty-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59212992 https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/nuclear-power-and-the-environment.php
It is dangerous (or can be dangerous, but rarely it is). But he never said he was against nuclear energy. Quite the opposite in fact
I am Just saying that the Trump loving crowd that has showed up couldn't vote for Trump, at least not legally.
The same logic leads you to think anything can be dangerous. Not knowing things isn't a superpower. It doesn't make you a better person. Indeed the opposite.
Michigan has required IDs since before 2020. Biden won it. Pennsylvania does not require ID, Trump won it in 2024. https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-kamala-harris-win-only-where-voter-id-isnt-necessary-1982932
You already have it. His energy policy is fully outlined and the methods by which he will effect said policy with respect to nuclear energy in particular were presented by me, to you, just now. You have everything you need, you just don't want to look at it or accept it. Yes we do, and we've been roundly criticized by you and your allies here for supporting some of the things we all know he is going to do. His agenda is very clear, both as reflected by a prior 4 years in government and outlined policy proposals and clear endorsements from his own mouth for the next 4 years. The issue is not the existence of this agenda, it is the fact that you disagree with this agenda and do not believe we should be supporting it. That's fine to disagree, but to gaslight us into the falsehood that theres no agenda to disagree on is another story, especially when you have a record of backing a candidate whose policy proposals were so nonexistent or vague it walked her right into a landslide defeat. "Everyone"? Who is everyone? The forumers here? That's far from everyone. Most of the country voted for Trump. And even among those who aren't, few are as aggressively and militantly partisan as you have been here and elsewhere with the poking fun at their opponents for simply disagreeing with them. We aren't the ones supporting the candidate and the ideology that just got dismissed in a landslide. To the extent the country is laughing at all, the country isn't laughing at us, it's laughing at you. Example of what? You've said nothing of substance at all. What you've offered is intellectually dishonest gaslighting and willful ignorance of reality in the face of continued efforts to provide you evidence you asked for. If this is the best you can do, by all means continue, but it's going to be a long four years for you.
There is truth to that. They would rather the country suffer just to say "see I told you !!!" rather than be happy at prosperity as a collective and admit they were wrong, which would really take nothing.
Why are you nitpicking the point then, you have your answer. Trump isn't building it himself. He's the King of delegation. Your imagination is playing tricks on you. Touch grass dude.
That whole abortion issue is so overblown. Any woman who wants one simply has to hop on a bus to a different State and get one there
I think what we need to reckon with here is the reality that Trump's states rights argument was effective and women, broadly, are not perceiving him to be the existential threat to this right that Democrats have made him out to be. I argued in the other thread that while ending Roe was definitely a pro-life shift on a national level, overall it could be viewed as a pro-choice move on the party level. I got cussed out there for this, but it is accurate and you're seeing the results of that in the voting numbers, Before, the GOP's pro life wing was ascendant and pushing optimistically for a national abortion. Trump has made this impossible, and forced them to cabin their advocacy to the state level, where they really only have a chance of making any headway in a small fraction of states. The vast majority of states, even red ones, have locked in abortion access. In short, the move to states rights approaches on abortion isn't actually that pro-life, and isn't actually a practical threat to the abortion rights of most women in the USA. The national abortion ban threat that the GOPs pro life wing had so strongly pushed for years is largely out the window as well, not only because Trump has sidelined that push loudly and publicly, but because it just doesnt have the support. Florida is a great example of this: the pro choice amendment failed there, but only because it required a 60% threshold to pass. 57% of voters backed the amendment. To contextualize this: an amendment to put an end to pre-viability abortion bans in Florida received more support, on a percentage basis, than Donald Trump (56%) himself did in the state. Abortion access in Florida is, essentially, as popular as Trump is. Which means...there's no way a national abortion ban makes it through congress. If you can't get 50% of deep red Florida to back a straight up ban, you're not going to manage it nationally. So, to summarize, women are seeing the following two realities: 1. "My state probably won't ban abortion, so my access practically won't be limited" (they don't practically feel the effects of the end of Roe) 2. Trump doesn't want a national abortion ban (so point 1 above isn't threatened). That is what gets women not to hold the abortion issue against Trump, and vote on the other issues (ex: economy).
I want to add to this point, as it helps to contextualize the point I made in the post above on abortion access. Right this moment, there are 17 states with what effectively amount to abortion bans (total or 6 week). That number is dropping - Missouri, where abortion is currently effectively banned, just passed a measure guaranteeing abortion access up to viability that will go into effect next year. Almost none of the states on this list (save maybe for Georgia) are swing states. Women in PA, Wisconsin, Michigan, etc just aren't feeling the threat on a personal level that Democrats are insisting is there, and that matters.
Somebody's looking for a new job https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...on-avoid-Florida-homes-Trump-signs-fired.html
I was going to say something about this, but I think rubbing it in would set off too many liberal leaning lurkers who want to joint the thread and as @hector_br said, we're about inclusion here and don't want to chase off those who don't share the same beliefs. All are welcome.
@Athlone addresses @American Brummie 's concern and Brummie disappeared? Let's talk about this Brummie. What are your thoughts?
incest rape that lead to an abortion?? How common is that?? Maybe I should email Adam schiffs office lol
99% of abortions are preventable with education. Maybe we should focus better efforts on that. In the case of incest or if the woman's life is at risk, obviously that's a discussion for the woman and her physician, but imagine if people just used a bit more common sense when they hooked up, responsibly. I don't think we'd be having this discussion.
I posted this in one of their threads but I don't expect a response, so reposting it here if one of the democrat followers wants to try and answer this honestly. Trump has 74,729,200 votes (50.5%) in 2024 currently and had 74,224,319 in 2020 Biden got 81,284,666 in 2020 Kamala has 71,028,223 so far 10,000,000 votes different in an election where Democrats were saying if Trump gets into power it will be the last one? Something doesn't add up. Except this: @24:00 their strategy for poll watching is discussed. They started their program during the primaries, refined them and deployed it to areas where election fraud was suspected last time. Unless you want to claim that the 10million who thought it was very important to remove Trump last time, just didn't care this time. I don't buy it. His numbers essentially stayed the same. Red pill time.
I think there's going to be many of these in the coming weeks on X: .@DrArleneUnfltrd, the online profile of a retired political science academic, recorded a video just before the election where she mocks a store clerk for disagreeing with her credentialed analysis that Kamala Harris would win in a landslide. pic.twitter.com/FEveouNNxZ— Andy Ngo 🏳️🌈 (@MrAndyNgo) November 9, 2024