Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Politics] The 2024 US Election - *MATCH DAY*

Who will win the 2024 Presidential Election?

  • President Joe Biden - Democrat

    Votes: 3 0.7%
  • Donald Trump - Republican

    Votes: 173 41.9%
  • Vice President, Kamala Harris - Democrat

    Votes: 217 52.5%
  • Other Democratic candidate tbc

    Votes: 20 4.8%

  • Total voters
    413
  • This poll will close: .






tedebear

Legal Alien
NSC Patron
Jul 7, 2003
17,117
In my computer
I think it’s you who is nowhere near reality. Net migration over the last 3 years is a falsehood.

Its scary when people are so anti establishmentarian they can't accept facts. They have been so brainwashed by Trump and the Republicans that they can over look reality to believe his narrative of lying and racism, and park their morals too. Comes across as crazy. Truly a study in the power of a Dictator on the disenfranchised and uneducated.
 


Deportivo Seagull

I should coco
Jul 22, 2003
5,471
Mid Sussex
But it’s not a Biden/Harris ticket is it. It’s a Harris and who the f*ck knows ticket. I care because a Harris is an ignoramus who dropped out of the race in 2020 before the primaries because she was so unpopular. God forbid she might even win, a disaster for the USA and the world.
She’s only an ignoramus because she frightens you. Female, black, Indian and intelligent. Whereas you want a sex offender and someone that likes to hangout with perverts and underaged girls. Your moral compass is well and truly f***ed!
 
Last edited:


Zeberdi

“Vorsprung durch Technik”
NSC Patron
Oct 20, 2022
6,941
as someone outside of US i am aware that party nominees are determined by their convention. the primaries are a pageant for the party to see who's available and who the membership would prefer. there is no obligation for them to have any form of vote, only their own party rules guide how they select a nominee. i find it odd that someone in the US doesn't understand this, and would claim it's undemocratic that a private organisation has altered their choice of who to support. it's the Democrat's nomination, it's their membership's issue who or how they agree to it. presumably you're not going to vote for them anyway, so why the fudge do you care how they nominate them?
Yes but the rules differ for each party and obligation does come into it although less for Democrats than Republicans.

Primaries and caucuses determine the number of delegates each candidate has that can vote at the Convention for both parties.

The key difference is Democratic delegates are not bound by their pledges to vote for the same candidate at the Convention as they did in the primaries and immediately after he stood down, Biden’s delegates promised (either verbally or in writing) to vote for Harris at the Convention.

Republican delegates on the other hand, are bound to vote for the candidate that they voted for in the Primaries so transferring the pledged delegate vote to another candidate would be more problematic, seen as ‘undemocratic’ and counter to their Party rules.
 
Last edited:








Zeberdi

“Vorsprung durch Technik”
NSC Patron
Oct 20, 2022
6,941
But it’s not a Biden/Harris ticket is it. It’s a Harris and who the f*ck knows ticket. I care because a Harris is an ignoramus who dropped out of the race in 2020 before the primaries because she was so unpopular. God forbid she might even win, a disaster for the USA and the world.

Whatever you think of Harris, it astonishes me that anyone could actually believe it is Harris, not Trump who would be a disaster for the world if she regained the WH.

  • Have you read Project 25?
  • Do you understand Trump’s position on Europe, Ukraine and Russia and the implications that has for the geo-political security of the UK and Europe?
  • Do you not understand how having a Climate Change denier back in the WH would have existential implications for the whole world?
  • Do you really not understand that Trump tearing up the Iran agreement, moving the American assembly from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi’s annexation plans for the West Bank triggered the ME into a new downward spiral of radicalism, unrest and conflict?
  • Do you not understand how Trump’s proposed isolationist policies and trade war with China could spark a global recession?
  • Are you so blindfolded by your Democratic prejudice, that you can’t see how inciting civil disobedience and unrest in America sends ripples of uncertainty through global financial markets, creates instability in other liberal democracies and serves as a welcome diversion for nefarious intrusion from Russia and China into Western democratic infrastructure?
Anyone suggesting that of the two candidates, it is Harris that would be a disaster for the USA and the World, needs to wake up and smell the coffee. Or just fcuking wake UP!
 
Last edited:






herecomesaregular

We're in the pipe, 5 by 5
Oct 27, 2008
4,656
Still in Brighton
A lot of people of mixed heritage ie black/white, identify themselves as black. "Black" has more a sense of identity than "mixed race" and therefore more a sense of belonging as you have "black" culture which is more definable than "mixed race" culture which is harder to define.

The only other alternative is for them to identify themselves as "white", which you could argue would be just as valid as them identifying themselves as black, but I suppose their skin tone or other features which denote the black part of their heritage prevents them from doing so due to society's various pressures, and pressures from all sides.

A mixed race person identifying as black is generally accepted as the norm whereas a mixed race person (with mixed race features) identifying as white would open themselves up to criticism and accusations of being ashamed of or in denial of their black heritage because of the perceptions of racism and discrimination. It could also be perceived as a betrayal or rejection or denial of their black heritage in the context of "black pride".

So because of all those pressures and also to have more of a sense of "belonging" it's easier for a mixed race person to identify as black even if by definition they define themselves as "mixed race". There is a subtle difference between "identity" and "definition".
Thank you for your comments, very interesting. I guess it's easy for me as a white male to define them from the outside. To me they're just my niece and nephew and I love them as family- too simple a viewpoint really. I don't envy them because of the extra pressures they face, as you mention. They're mid-teens so they're still in the process of finding their identity and only they themselves can define that, same as sexual identity - not up to me to define it for them. I do need to put more thought into it though and some further reading. google tells me Obama On Our Minds has an interesting chapter called The (Mixed) Race To The White House.. but cant find it for less than £50 annoyingly.

 


dsr-burnley

Well-known member
Aug 15, 2014
2,634
Trump, who isn't senile according to some, didn't know Harris was black:



This is the same tactic they like to roll out against black candidates. Trying to deny they are "black". They tried it with Obama too, due to his white mother.

It's a bit surprising really. Right back through history, to those who believed that "black" and "white" is important and we need to know which is which, "white" has been defined as pure blood white, and a hint of black ancestry made the person "black". They had different words for it - quadroon, octaroon in the days of slavery; mixed race in South Africa; non-Aryan in Germany. But the point was that of (essentially) white is better, and if you aren't fully white, you are (as was then seen as inferior by the white powers-that-be) black.

Nowadays, when surely we ought to be getting to the point where it doesn't matter, it's still the case than an element of society thinks that white must still be pure bred and anything other than pure white, is black. It's unpleasant IMO. People are just people, and who their ancestors are is scarcely relevant.

(It's one of the premises of that programme "Who do you think you are" that bugs me. We all know who we are. We are, essentially, the creature known as "Me". If I discover I was switched at birth or adopted or had an ancestor who was a slave dealer or who was black, it doesn't stop the essential truth. I am Me.)
 


Coxovi

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Nov 5, 2011
420
Suisse
If she is *that* unpopular and that much is an 'ignoramus', then clearly she won't win, then?

Unlike Trump who people seem to think is the solution to ALL their problems and will, in four years, turn the US into the greatest nation the world had EVER seen...
Just like last time…
 




Withdean South Stand

Well-known member
Mar 2, 2014
646
There was no enthusiasm for Hillary's campaign or candidacy and Trump was an unknown entity on the political stage. Now he's very well known and hated by anyone with a brain or who paid attention to the absolute disaster that was his administration and even bigger pending disaster if that fat mess gets in again. The Kamala campaign has organic and genuine energy and excitement about it - she's a phenomenon and might have timed her run perfectly.

The risk at this stage is that things are going almost TOO well, there will be a September/October surprise at some point. And they need to get the VP selection right - but considering who is on the list, I don't think there are any choices as bad/damaging as JD Vance!
 




Mellotron

I've asked for soup
Jul 2, 2008
32,481
Brighton
The Kamala campaign has organic and genuine energy and excitement about it - she's a phenomenon and might have timed her run perfectly.

The risk at this stage is that things are going almost TOO well, there will be a September/October surprise at some point. And they need to get the VP selection right - but considering who is on the list, I don't think there are any choices as bad/damaging as JD Vance!
Agreed - it's too early to say it's done and dusted - but his campaign at present looks much more unstable and volatile than hers.

Pete Buttigieg speaks really, really well. I don't know enough about the alternatives but black woman with white man feels like it fits well in terms of Democrats wanting to be "the Big party" of the nation.
 




Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
56,197
Faversham
She’s only an ignoramus because she frightens you. Female, black, hispanic and intelligent. Whereas you want a sex offender and someone that likes to hangout with perverts and underaged girls. Your moral compass is well and truly f***ed!
Point of order. Indian. From India. On her mother's side.
 




Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
56,197
Faversham
It's a bit surprising really. Right back through history, to those who believed that "black" and "white" is important and we need to know which is which, "white" has been defined as pure blood white, and a hint of black ancestry made the person "black". They had different words for it - quadroon, octaroon in the days of slavery; mixed race in South Africa; non-Aryan in Germany. But the point was that of (essentially) white is better, and if you aren't fully white, you are (as was then seen as inferior by the white powers-that-be) black.

Nowadays, when surely we ought to be getting to the point where it doesn't matter, it's still the case than an element of society thinks that white must still be pure bred and anything other than pure white, is black. It's unpleasant IMO. People are just people, and who their ancestors are is scarcely relevant.

(It's one of the premises of that programme "Who do you think you are" that bugs me. We all know who we are. We are, essentially, the creature known as "Me". If I discover I was switched at birth or adopted or had an ancestor who was a slave dealer or who was black, it doesn't stop the essential truth. I am Me.)
Very well said.
 


Kalimantan Gull

Well-known member
Aug 13, 2003
13,456
Central Borneo / the Lizard
Agreed - it's too early to say it's done and dusted - but his campaign at present looks much more unstable and volatile than hers.

Pete Buttigieg speaks really, really well. I don't know enough about the alternatives but black woman with white man feels like it fits well in terms of Democrats wanting to be "the Big party" of the nation.
Pete is incredibly impressive at dismantling republican talking points, but can we be sure America is ready for black woman + gay man on the same ticket? I wouldn't be surprised if he got a substantial role in the next democrat administration, maybe even secretary of state, and he will surely run again in future.
 




Thunder Bolt

Silly old bat
It's a bit surprising really. Right back through history, to those who believed that "black" and "white" is important and we need to know which is which, "white" has been defined as pure blood white, and a hint of black ancestry made the person "black". They had different words for it - quadroon, octaroon in the days of slavery; mixed race in South Africa; non-Aryan in Germany. But the point was that of (essentially) white is better, and if you aren't fully white, you are (as was then seen as inferior by the white powers-that-be) black.

Nowadays, when surely we ought to be getting to the point where it doesn't matter, it's still the case than an element of society thinks that white must still be pure bred and anything other than pure white, is black. It's unpleasant IMO. People are just people, and who their ancestors are is scarcely relevant.

(It's one of the premises of that programme "Who do you think you are" that bugs me. We all know who we are. We are, essentially, the creature known as "Me". If I discover I was switched at birth or adopted or had an ancestor who was a slave dealer or who was black, it doesn't stop the essential truth. I am Me.)
It goes back to the days of Empire. Much of Africa has a great oral tradition (think of Roots where Alex Haley traced his family back to Africa by repeating the same phrases through the generations) instead of a written language. Explorers labelled many as savages with 'no education' which then became tittle tattle about blacks having less brain power than whites.
Even science and mathematics were considered acceptable because Greeks and Arabian countries were more white than black.
This is why slavery started in the Southern States and Caribbean, and to an extent by the Spanish in South America/Portuguese in Brazil. Slaves were forbidden to learn to read and punished severely if they did.
 


Mellotron

I've asked for soup
Jul 2, 2008
32,481
Brighton
Pete is incredibly impressive at dismantling republican talking points, but can we be sure America is ready for black woman + gay man on the same ticket? I wouldn't be surprised if he got a substantial role in the next democrat administration, maybe even secretary of state, and he will surely run again in future.
Totally get your point but it is a bit silly isn't it - if he was straight I'm certain he'd be the VP.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here