• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

US Politics 2028 U.S. Presidential Election

right.

i think that it's pretty high up the list of priorities for a lot of americans.

Republicans Crater on Medicaid Trust

20250612-Medicaid-Is-Deeply-and.jpg


"This Navigator Research report covers Americans’ views of Medicaid cuts in the Republican tax bill.

Medicaid remains deeply — and increasingly popular. An overwhelming and bipartisan majority — 79 percent — are favorable toward Medicaid. In the last month, Medicaid’s favorability has increased across all parties in Navigator tracking.

Medicaid is not just popular, it is essential to how Americans evaluate their support for elected officials. We asked: “Please indicate whether or not you could support an elected official who voted to cut Medicaid, as long as you agreed with the elected official on most other things.”

The results for Republicans in Congress, who just voted to cut Medicaid, are staggering: 71 percent of respondents say they could not support such an official, including 51 percent of Republicans and 72 percent of independents. Among non-MAGA Republicans, 57 percent said they could not support an elected official who voted to cut Medicaid." (my emphasis)

alasdair
 
democrat party disapproval rating is at 71%

they're done for if they don't do something different

they seem to be trying to appeal to some mythical voters who are torn between republican and democrat but that's just alienating their entire base
 
someguyontheinternet said:
democrat party disapproval rating is at 71%

they're done for if they don't do something different

they seem to be trying to appeal to some mythical voters who are torn between republican and democrat but that's just alienating their entire base
Click to expand...
after deriding the most active and passionate chunk of their base as "Bernie Bros" in 2016 + on, and also ratfucking their best candidate multiple times, the DNC is now actively spending millions of dollars on figuring out how to "appeal to male voters".

it is sad how poorly they ride the fence and how incredibly useless they really are. The establishment of the Democratic party is really no different from the GOP, they have some nominal difference in platform positions, but they all kind of operate in the same corrupt manner.
 
The US is different to the UK as in we have a leader of the opposition and an entire shadow cabinet. So in essence, they follow step for step what the governing party is doing and pointing out all of the mistakes.

It means that they do get at least some air time and they can show how THEIR way is much better than the way the ruling party is doing things.

We had Boris Johnson in power for over three years so I would have expected the US to view us as a cautionary example of what happens when a lying idiot in charge.
 
deficiT said:
after deriding the most active and passionate chunk of their base as "Bernie Bros" in 2016 + on, and also ratfucking their best candidate multiple times, the DNC is now actively spending millions of dollars on figuring out how to "appeal to male voters".

it is sad how poorly they ride the fence and how incredibly useless they really are. The establishment of the Democratic party is really no different from the GOP, they have some nominal difference in platform positions, but they all kind of operate in the same corrupt manner.
Click to expand...

Do you think the ice raids happening now are nominal? What about the cuts to snap, medicaid, and Medicare? You think that would've happened under Kamala? Genuinely curious. Because these don't feel like minor differences.
 
mal3volent said:
Do you think the ice raids happening now are nominal? What about the cuts to snap, medicaid, and Medicare? You think that would've happened under Kamala? Genuinely curious. Because these don't feel like minor differences.
Click to expand...
Certainly not.

My point is more that they don't really support those things to the level at which they should or that they claim, and that the party mechanisms they operate with are corrupt.

Third way liberalism has been a big wave since Clinton, that is the philosophy most Democrats still follow. They're all about cutting those necessary systems as much as possible, being hawks about the deficit and budget, and making immigration a harder process than it needs to be.

Certainly things would be different, likely better under Harris, I just don't trust them to really do the right thing or take the actions that need to happen.

They focus on appealing to moderates and governing conservatively. In so doing, they muddy the waters regarding what progress can be made, they alienate many of the people that would even consider supporting them, and they shoot themselves in the foot.
 
deficiT said:
Certainly not.

My point is more that they don't really support those things to the level at which they should or that they claim, and that the party mechanisms they operate with are corrupt.

Third way liberalism has been a big wave since Clinton, that is the philosophy most Democrats still follow. They're all about cutting those necessary systems as much as possible, being hawks about the deficit and budget, and making immigration a harder process than it needs to be.

Certainly things would be different, likely better under Harris, I just don't trust them to really do the right thing or take the actions that need to happen.

They focus on appealing to moderates and governing conservatively. In so doing, they muddy the waters regarding what progress can be made, they alienate many of the people that would even consider supporting them, and they shoot themselves in the foot.
Click to expand...

Definitely agree with most of that. I just think it would've made a lot more sense to keep Trump out then push for reform.
I think the "both sides are the same" rhetoric contributed to low voter turnout especially among younger voters.
That's just my opinion.
 
I just took a quick squint at the news. DT has returned from Canada due to events in Iran.

Now I've noted that initially DT didn't seem to want to take sides but now says if Iran had signed a deal with the US, the attacks would not have taken place. But at the same time, various US government outlets are saying the US had nothing to do with the attacks... Meanwhile, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that the attacks are "fully coordinated" with the US.

So the last thing DT has said is that everyone (all 10 million) residents of Tehran should evacuate. That is an uttely impossible so I'm unsure WHO that message was for.

But one has to wonder if Israel now feels that they can essentially lay at least part of the blame on the US. It need not be true, but DT statements will certainly suggest to many nations that the US WAS involved.

A military analyst told me that Hamas were essentially being used as 'speed bumps' to slow down Israel directly attacking. But it would seem it's now a war with one side seeming to give credit to another nation to MAKE them pick a side.

It's been mentioned by a few proliferation experts that Iran enriched at least some uranium on the basis of 'well, you walked out of the deal we had, so we will do what we want'. Posturing, I suppose.

But be aware that unile almost every other nation with nuclear ambishions, Iran has mainly gone down the path of enriching uranium rather than breeding 239 plutonium. I'm sure we are all aware that uranium, unlike plutonium, isn't subject to much spontanius fission i.e you don't need to develop complex implosion designs. AFAIK all of the tactical nuclear weapons use (a lot of) uranium BECAUSE the physics package is vastly simpler.

So a bit of a concern.
 
mal3volent said:
Definitely agree with most of that. I just think it would've made a lot more sense to keep Trump out then push for reform.
I think the "both sides are the same" rhetoric contributed to low voter turnout especially among younger voters.
That's just my opinion.
Click to expand...
people have been trying to push the Democrats for reform for a long time. did anything change under Obama? Biden? Clinton? is it always going to be "next Democratic candidate will be the one, surely!"

because I'm still waiting. I contact my reps by phone and letter and fax, I participate but nothing happens because I'm not a corporate donor
 
someguyontheinternet said:
people have been trying to push the Democrats for reform for a long time. did anything change under Obama? Biden? Clinton? is it always going to be "next Democratic candidate will be the one, surely!"

because I'm still waiting. I contact my reps by phone and letter and fax, I participate but nothing happens because I'm not a corporate donor
Click to expand...

Actually yeah, there were substantial improvements in many areas under each of those administrations. More so than the alternative.
 
The chances anyone remotely worth a damn will win the DNC or RNC vote are about 0.00000000000001%

We all could have voted for John Kasich in 2015 but instead it became a stupid quibble about dick and hand sizes between Cruz, Trump, and Rubio. Rationality doesn't stand a chance.

Maybe that's what people want. I sure as fuck don't... Bernie got snubbed too many times for me to believe the DNC will ever put anyone forward who's worth a damn either.

All anyone can do is stock supplies for the growing decline of society at large. Food, ammo, energy and water sources/supplies, things you can trade that will help you survive when either an authoritarian state takes the reigns or anarchy replaces it.

Humans naturally draw towards feudalism. That's where things will go after the collapse I have a feeling.
 
mal3volent said:
Definitely agree with most of that. I just think it would've made a lot more sense to keep Trump out then push for reform.
I think the "both sides are the same" rhetoric contributed to low voter turnout especially among younger voters.
That's just my opinion.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I mean I feel like a lot of people around my age, with similar politics, have been so disappointed by the political reality in this country over so many years, that type of rhetoric has become somewhat unavoidable. After becoming hopeful in different times, like Obama's election, Occupy Wall St, Bernie's candidacy, etc the reality of the political system in this country has showed it's face pretty starkly in a lot of those situations. Despite pretty major consensus for a certain direction, Democrats will always move the opposite to appease the right.

I think "both parties are the exact same" is probably reductive, but I can't fault people for arriving at that general conclusion, because on some level, it's somewhat true. I still go through the motions of voting, in primaries and general elections, and supporting who I think is the right person, but I have little hope in electoral politics.

I think if people care about issues, their communities, or the country at large, the more useful move is to become engaged in local organizations, political groups, etc (whatever it is one supports) directly. As well as getting involved in their local politics. I think these are the areas in which regular people can actually make a difference. Higher level politics are very undemocratic, and the focus is primarily on raising money and winning elections, what one does in office is almost an afterthought.
 
someguyontheinternet said:
didn't Clinton say some stuff about super predators, just as an example

all we get is more and more police state never less
Click to expand...

Yeah he did. Living in a democracy requires you to take the good with the bad. You hope that over time progress is made and I think clearly the United States has done fairly well overall...
 
Will the USA exist in 2028?

Because the above posts feel a lot like people re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

Your president publically supported a nuclear armed nation in it's attack on a nation who currently don't have nuclear weapons but are uniquely in the position for having the ability to produce extremely simple nuclear weapons. I sugggest that MAY represent the larger danger.

While it MAY be possible to work out the type of reseach reactor used to breed 239Pu based on the product being a mixture of isotopes, with 235U, 239U is used as the tamper so could anyone ever say for certain where a terrorist organization obtained a small tactical nuclear weapon. But to be clear, just because physicists ADDED markers in various weapons tests isn't the same as Hollywood. If such technology exists, someone could purposefully add tracers to prevent identification. But my understanding is that Hollywood based a story on research reactors being identifable. Thing is, 235U isn't make in a rector. It's simply enriched and depleted. Enriched uranium (235U) for fission, depleted uranium (238U) for tamper (if the weight and size of a tamper is practical). But a thin berylium shell 'reflects' neutrons. I used the inverted commas because in fact it does not reflect - when a neutron hits 9Be, it releases one of it's own neutrons, but in practice, the result is the same.

Don't even get me started on the addition of a small quantity of D and T into the centre of the fissile mass - boosted fission is now standard practice but again, a cost, size, mass, complexity tradeoff.

To be clear, I mean things small compated to those two weapons used in WW2 but Ted Taylor had a design for a 105mm shell that was nuclear. Someone guesstimated the maximum yield could be 7.8 tonnes of TNT but weights 19Kg. So they likely can be very small indeed. Especially if it need not be designed to function after being fired out of a field gun. But Even a 7.8 tonne yield would, I assume, if positioned correctly, be capable of causing serious harm. I mean, even if it's just 2-3 tonnes, isn't that 'enough'?

So right now shouldn't the current president be making it clear that whatever Israel says, the US took no part in the attacks on Iran? Because it does seem like the US is being forced to openly support one side and in the medium term, that might be bad. It doesn't strike me as the best way to ensure peace or, more specifically, the optimal outcome for Israel is not the optimal outcome for the USA.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top