So how exactly were Harris, Biden, and Clinton worse than trump?

You said the hotels were a sort of temporal solution because of the pandemics

No, I didn’t. I pointed out that the hotel was closed due to the pandemic at the time the illegals were placed there, emphasizing that they were just using the space because the shelters in the city were all full. That btw is common sense - if you need to put these people somewhere and you have hotel spaces that are closed down, that’s the obvious choice.

And again, when you say people are “staying in 5 star hotels”, you are very clearly implying that they are receiving 5 star accommodations, which is the hole point of where the outrage here comes from but is not true at all. It’s blatant propaganda which you are just regurgitating.

What is this Trump's spending I was supossedly defending?

You said you didn’t see how tax breaks couldn’t help the economy, even though it raises the deficit just the same. I am also quite sure you support funding for ICE as one other example and would argue it’s putting Americans to work, even though you haven’t said that here to be fair.

I guess he got rid of the whole USAID because of the American economic situation, which is a valid spending cut because the yankees are not bound to help other countries.

Again, USAID doesn’t exist because we wanted to be charitable to the world. It exists because it helps us advance our interests. I already explained this, no surprise that you continue to ignore it.

As to the useless programs of USAID, I referred specifically to the ones associated with the wokism like the infamous DEI program.

You didn’t name a single program, you just caricatured them as “woke”, which suggests that you have no idea what any of those programs were even for and are just repeating the propaganda you were fed. Let me know when you want to have a real conversation about whether these programs were anything near what you are propagating.

I think I made myself very clear and my comments should leave no room for misinterpretations.

You think wrong. This is the problem with living in an echo chamber, you don’t ever have to question the things you are told so your beliefs are not a product of facts plus logic but of repetition. No critical thought needed because everything is “just obvious”, and when someone challenges you they become unworthy of being taken seriously by default.

I must be the most stupid person here in this forum for trying to debate with a political militant like you.

I don't think we can reach common groung in absolutely anything because you're clearly a member of the Democratic Party. It doesn't matter what I state, let alone the evidence I show, you will always take a stand in favour of Democrats no matter how disastrous, lefty and ridiculous they are in matter of governance.

Just remember, the European Parliament is getting stricter in terms of migration policies and approved a new migration return law for illegal migrants. Decades of being woke hasn't payed off, so Europeans are forcing their politicians to be more conservative. It should be a lesson for the US.

I don't think we can reach common groung in absolutely anything because you're clearly a member of the Democratic Party.

The problem is not that I’m a member of the Democratic Party. The problem is that you are totally uninterested in learning anything that might contradict your cherished right wing views.

Throughout this conversation you have made numerous claims to which I have either explained why your logic doesn’t follow or challenged you to provide any evidence to support them. In every case you just repeated the same talking points with no regard for any of the problems shown with what you presented. That’s not good faith discussion, it’s psychological protectionism.

Personally I think question itself is a rather toxic and damaging line of thinking.

Which is worse? That should not be what people ask when electing the leaders of a country. It should be flatly "Which is good."

If you offer me 2 tacos- one being a diarrhea taco and the other being a vomit taco- I would never choose to eat one saying "Well this ones less awful than the other." The more we process political ideology with this "Which is worse" mentality we loose sight of actually asking our politicians to be good. It lowers the bar to just having to be a little less awful (or just appear less awful) than the opposing side which is toxic to society imo.

If you like like vomit tacos the least and you choose neither, you basically end up eating vomit tacos, the ones you like the least.

You are trying to sound high minded and principled but you actually end up sounding short sighted and silly

linate wrote:

If you like like vomit tacos the least and you choose neither, you basically end up eating vomit tacos, the ones you like the least.

You are trying to sound high minded and principled but you actually end up sounding short sighted and silly

Well to be more specific- I think the most healthy thing for any large group be that a political party or a religion is to self police. To be critical of your own side. This is a connotation you touched on in your intro post. How a lot of Trump supporters do not seem to be capable of being critical of them.

The mechanism in which that happens is the finger pointing at the other side. Its the "Yeah he did this BUT THE OTHER GUY DID THAT!!" mentality to excuse and ignore flaws arguing that 'your side' is less shitty.

I think that is counter productive at scale and the more people play in to the 'which side sucks more' mentality the less power a society has to influence standards for their leadership and have their concerns addressed.

I am not a republicrat or a democran but I am critical of this pattern.

Which is worse? That should not be what people ask when electing the leaders of a country. It should be flatly "Which is good."

This is perfectly fine if we’re talking about primary elections, but this ignores the reality of the dual party system we have in place. Once we’re down to our final two options, standards are irrelevant. You either vote for the lesser of two evils or you end up with the worst possible outcome.

This kind of thinking is exactly how we got Trump in the first place. Many on the left took issue with how the DNC pushed Hillary forward and decided to voice their discontent by abstaining from voting. The result is that Trump just barely won. As a result we lost the Supreme Court for decades, among many other things.

In 2024 a major segment of the Democratic Party was fiercely upset with the Biden administration over its handling of Gaza, so they decided that they would stay home or even vote for Donald Trump. They wanted to show the democrats that their vote wasn’t free, decision ended up costing them a candidate who at least pledged to fully support their cause and instead they ended up with a president whose philosophy here was that Israel needs to “finish the job”.

You can preach and even advocate for the world you wish you lived in, but you still have to live in the real one.

Double_R wrote:

Which is worse? That should not be what people ask when electing the leaders of a country. It should be flatly "Which is good."

This is perfectly fine if we’re talking about primary elections, but this ignores the reality of the dual party system we have in place. Once we’re down to our final two options, standards are irrelevant. You either vote for the lesser of two evils or you end up with the worst possible outcome.

This kind of thinking is exactly how we got Trump in the first place. Many on the left took issue with how the DNC pushed Hillary forward and decided to voice their discontent by abstaining from voting. The result is that Trump just barely won. As a result we lost the Supreme Court for decades, among many other things.

In 2024 a major segment of the Democratic Party was fiercely upset with the Biden administration over its handling of Gaza, so they decided that they would stay home or even vote for Donald Trump. They wanted to show the democrats that their vote wasn’t free, decision ended up costing them a candidate who at least pledged to fully support their cause and instead they ended up with a president whose philosophy here was that Israel needs to “finish the job”.

You can preach and even advocate for the world you wish you lived in, but you still have to live in the real one.

The funny thing here is that I am not preaching about a world I wish to live in. I am not taking a stance on Trump or Haris or Biden or Obama or anyone else.

I am simply voicing an unproductive pattern of discussing issue that favors some system and ignores the wishes of the public.

Trump was willing to pardon the whole country for their crimes. The other three were less forgiving.

Degrees of wrong. Biden obviously pardoned people with conflicts of interest the same that Trump did.

Again, the argument of "But the other side did worse" justifying bad behavior is the problem. Between the diarrhea taco and the other being a vomit taco- I choose neither and call both of their behavior out instead of excusing either side.

If you blame both parties, you have no one to support.

There is a difference between blindly following a side and providing support for a side while also acknowledging their faults. I feel the ladder is a healthy way to look at political positions. When someone looses that ability to say "Yes my side did wrong here" and instead cuts to excusing that behavior when its brought up in conversation by arguing "But the other side did this" you have a very unhealthy and blindly biased position.

And the more sides focus on only holding the opposing side accountable the less power the people have. Politicians care more about what their voters think about them than what people who do not vote for them think. I believe if both sides were more critical of their own politicians and their own sides actions the interests of the citizens would actually be followed. And the reverse is true which I believe to be an intentional motive of both partys. To keep the public divided focusing on 'the other side' instead of trying to make productive change within their own side.

This is again why I describe this as an "unproductive pattern of discussing issue that favors some system and ignores the wishes of the public."

Very true. The public voted for Trump twice. Trump is what they wanted to be President.