Democrats are a political corporation of the CPSU kind. Their “integrity” is too strong. They never say anything that can be used against them. They never do anything that can be used against them. They grow their power steadily. They appear competent and they are, there’s no doubt in that.
It looks professional and strong, and humans are attracted to strength.
I’m just saying that if there’s a part of population frightened to shit over such a strong faction getting presidency for another 4 years, they are going to vote for anyone other than them, and with a two-party system - yes, for Trump.
I dunno. I’m part Armenian and part Jewish. Trump threatens both, one with possible enslavement and destruction, one with further moral corruption. Harris in words does not.
But at the same time I have a historical example - the 1996 election in Russia, where Yeltsin’s campaign had “vote or you’ll lose” as its slogan, his opposition consistent of very unpleasant people - a bunch of communists, fascists and traditionalists, with seemingly nothing in common other than the enemy, and the choice was much like you have between Harris and Trump now.
Only, as we now know, Yeltsin’s victory was a bridge leading to Putin’s coming to power.
TLDR, there’s also a sharp dichotomy between those who understand that the awesome strength asking for their vote will not serve them, they will serve it, and those who don’t. And I guess those who can’t decide between these two criteria will still vote for one of the sides, because they’ll feel they have to do something.
I’m glad I’m not a US citizen, because I personally don’t know how I would decide between these two.
I’m sorry, it’s early for me, but did you just say you don’t know how you would choose between the guy shown in the clip above and the competent democrat because of some unrelated election in Russia?
Edit: Nvm came across some of your other comments on the matter and you’re clearly just out of touch.
Comparing Yeltsin the marginally competent drunkard to Harris who has paid her political dues and demonstrated more than sufficient competence in public office is a fatal flaw in your argument.
I’m not sure you know what integrity is, as it looks like you missed the point. I’m not saying Harris has a permanent halo affixed over her head, however, the utter lack of integrity in the other candidate is blatant and extreme. That’s not unimportant, and it’s a frightening indicator for those that actually are citizens of this country. People actually identify with that guy, and I believe this is why. They are lacking in integrity and therefore are unable to identify others who are or are not lacking in it. To them, people with actual integrity are frauds or merely pretending to have integrity. Because nobody would really be like that, right?
If by integrity you mean that a presidential candidate is honest with you and follows some moral values they declare, then you’re so delusional I don’t think there’s hope for you.
If by integrity you mean that a presidential candidate is honest with you and follows some moral values they declare, then you’re so delusional I don’t think there’s hope for you.
Democrats are a political corporation of the CPSU kind. Their “integrity” is too strong. They never say anything that can be used against them. They never do anything that can be used against them. They grow their power steadily. They appear competent and they are, there’s no doubt in that.
It looks professional and strong, and humans are attracted to strength.
I’m just saying that if there’s a part of population frightened to shit over such a strong faction getting presidency for another 4 years, they are going to vote for anyone other than them, and with a two-party system - yes, for Trump.
I dunno. I’m part Armenian and part Jewish. Trump threatens both, one with possible enslavement and destruction, one with further moral corruption. Harris in words does not.
But at the same time I have a historical example - the 1996 election in Russia, where Yeltsin’s campaign had “vote or you’ll lose” as its slogan, his opposition consistent of very unpleasant people - a bunch of communists, fascists and traditionalists, with seemingly nothing in common other than the enemy, and the choice was much like you have between Harris and Trump now.
Only, as we now know, Yeltsin’s victory was a bridge leading to Putin’s coming to power.
TLDR, there’s also a sharp dichotomy between those who understand that the awesome strength asking for their vote will not serve them, they will serve it, and those who don’t. And I guess those who can’t decide between these two criteria will still vote for one of the sides, because they’ll feel they have to do something.
I’m glad I’m not a US citizen, because I personally don’t know how I would decide between these two.
I’m sorry, it’s early for me, but did you just say you don’t know how you would choose between the guy shown in the clip above and the competent democrat because of some unrelated election in Russia?
Edit: Nvm came across some of your other comments on the matter and you’re clearly just out of touch.
Removed by mod
Comparing Yeltsin the marginally competent drunkard to Harris who has paid her political dues and demonstrated more than sufficient competence in public office is a fatal flaw in your argument.
He wasn’t a marginally competent drunkard yet.
OK, we’ll see your ideas tested.
I’m not sure you know what integrity is, as it looks like you missed the point. I’m not saying Harris has a permanent halo affixed over her head, however, the utter lack of integrity in the other candidate is blatant and extreme. That’s not unimportant, and it’s a frightening indicator for those that actually are citizens of this country. People actually identify with that guy, and I believe this is why. They are lacking in integrity and therefore are unable to identify others who are or are not lacking in it. To them, people with actual integrity are frauds or merely pretending to have integrity. Because nobody would really be like that, right?
I meant internal consistency by integrity.
If by integrity you mean that a presidential candidate is honest with you and follows some moral values they declare, then you’re so delusional I don’t think there’s hope for you.
I meant internal consistency by integrity.
If by integrity you mean that a presidential candidate is honest with you and follows some moral values they declare, then you’re so delusional I don’t think there’s hope for you.
Does honesty exist on a spectrum, in your view? If not, have you ever met an honest person?
I’ve definitely met a few.
Damn, that’s a whole lot of rationalization. Newsflash - Boris Yeltsin and Kamala Haris are not analogous.