US 2024 Presidential Election

[Phoenixmgs]

No, you claimed porn wouldn't pass the Miller test

That's basically the opposite

I was looking at it as if porn (or insert whatever) passes all 3 statements then it's obscene and can be banned.

I'm not concerned porn is going to get banned, either. The American Taliban will certainly try, and just might get something passed federally.

Then the rest of us just use a VPN, and that includes the kids they're claiming to protect but don't actually give a shit about. Meanwhile, the low-infos figure out what the American Taliban has been up to, and that triggers the biggest Democratic landslide since FDR in the next election. No stronger proof positive Democratic strategists are either the dumbest SOB's on the planet, or simply bought and paid off, can be found right there. Never interrupt the opponent when they're making a mistake, and this porn shit is building up to be an "invading Russia in winter" scale of political SNAFU.

When the Free Speech Coalition got Indiana's porn ban overturned in court before it could go into effect, the end result was...they saved the Indiana GOP from itself. If they'd been smart they'd have let that fucker go into effect, launch an oppo campaign for the history books, and turn the 2024 election into a referendum on it.

I agree, I don't know why everyone is so up in arms about Project 2025 and stating that it's gonna do all these things (most of which aren't even in there). But if republicans actually do all that shit, there's gonna be like the biggest blue wave in history. In the end, what are you actually worried about then? And that blue wave will not just last for a single election cycle either, it will be longer than that. If I was a democrat, I'd basically be like "bring it!".

 

[Asita]

And yet, Trump saying if he lost there would be a bloodbath in the auto industry was definitely a threat of violence and not a metaphor.

And yet if you pay attention, you might notice that I've never so much as alluded to the bloodbath quote you're referring to.

And mind you, I was chastising Gorf here, who has a bit of a history of trying to argue some...downright weird conspiracy theories (such as egregiously misunderstanding legal impossibility as meaning that no crime could have been committed on Jan 6 on the grounds that what the rioters were trying to make Congress do would have itself been illegal) and whom I have repeatedly been telling needs to become a more active reader who actually looks deeper into the claims he's reading, and that he needs to do better about checking his assumptions.

 

[CriticalGaming]

We are so fucked, both these people suck.

 

[Agema]

We are so fucked, both these people suck.

Well, you're not really any more fucked than you were by the choices you had in 2020, 2016, and to an extent 2012, 2008, 2004, etc.

Part of the mystique of elections is building up the idea that things can go really right or wrong. Think of all the Republicans and Democrats who keep saying "Elect the other guy and it's the end of the country" election after election, and despite the country steadfastly failing to collapse (or even do that badly usually) if the other guy wins, they're still saying it. The art of modern governmental design is effectively in making decisions go through so many people and processes that radical change is difficult at best.

Although that said, I think Trump potentially offers the USA some more change from the status quo, whereas Harris is much more the continuity candidate. Whether Trump's changes would benefit the majority of Americans or the USA generally is a different matter.

 

[tstorm823]

Although that said, I think Trump potentially offers the USA some more change from the status quo, whereas Harris is much more the continuity candidate. Whether Trump's changes would benefit the majority of Americans or the USA generally is a different matter.

The only thing potentially to fear from Harris is that more of the same isn't always actually the same, if circumstances change drastically a regular old cog in charge of the machine isn't going to be much help.

I was rather indifferent the last two times. I didn't vote for Trump in 2016, and I voted Trump out of pity for Biden in 2020 knowing the presidency would do terrible things to him and otherwise the system would keep running through either administration. I am not indifferent this time, I want Trump in a landslide victory, I want the historic message that everything can be weaponized against a single person (some of it deserved), and the voters still get to decide. Trump winning would be a blow against the cynical, corrupt tactics in our politics, and I would revel in it.

 

[Bedinsis]

I am not indifferent this time, I want Trump in a landslide victory, I want the historic message that everything can be weaponized against a single person (some of it deserved), and the voters still get to decide. Trump winning would be a blow against the cynical, corrupt tactics in our politics, and I would revel in it.

I am doubtful that is the message people are going to take away from a Trump victory. Besides, what makes circumstances different from 2016? The image I got was that basically all of the media was against Trump back then already.

 

[tstorm823]

Besides, what makes circumstances different from 2016?

A) The election isn't primarily about Hillary Clinton this time.
B) It's not just the media weaponized against Trump, it's parts of all 3 branches of government as well.

 

[Eacaraxe]

She's not wrong. Trump is going to avoid debating Harris if he can manage it specifically because 1) he would definitely lose, he was rambly, only sort of coherent, and seemed to actively avoid the question being asked at every opportunity during the last one - him being seen as winning the last debate is a testament to just how badly Biden performed and 2) it will help demystify Harris to the general public in a way that would likely help her numbers (same reason why Biden should resign - a few months of Harris in charge and the country not burning down would help her numbers).

Trump debating Harris is literally the last thing you want, if you're a Harris supporter.

Harris is the worst debater in the Democratic party on the national level. Her poor debate performances sunk any hope her candidacy had breaking out of single-digit polling in 2020 (forget actually winning a primary), and Pence of all people handily beat her in the VP debate. She's dry, rambles and talks in circles off-the-cuff, can't find her point to make it in the first place, is awful at generating sound bytes (that work in her favor), and self-destructs when directly challenged on her own points or professional history. Buttigieg is a better debater than Harris, and all that man does is vomit word salad while attempting (poorly) to imitate Obama's voice.

Yes, she'll have the upper hand on the facts against Trump. Well done on meeting the lowest fucking bar in American electoral history. A week-old baked potato has the upper hand on the facts against Trump. We all should know, the US elected one in 2020.

Meanwhile, against Biden back in June, all Trump had to do to win was not publicly shit himself. Even then, if Trump literally shit his own pants onstage in front of a live national audience, the worst-case scenario would have been a draw. So, Trump just hung back and let the week-old baked potato get all the attention.

Against Harris, I'd expect Trump to behave far more as he did against Clinton: aggressive, punching from left and right, pulling out the New Yorker sarcasm for sound byte generation, no-selling her on any factual points she might make. Yes, Clinton won every debate on substance -- easily -- but every time they debated, Clinton's approval dropped and Trump's rose.

Which is ultimately the point to make: debates are more than bringing the strongest-possible arguments backed up by the most facts. Debates are performance, and Harris is a dreadful performer whereas Trump's a cross-medium, cross-genre, career performer who has a far more keen awareness of his audience than Democrats could ever hope to have. Trump was never out to "win" debates against Clinton in the traditional sense; he was out to let Clinton expose herself as the uncharismatic technocrat who can't stand on her own record while retaining progressive cred, and reframe the contest as between that and a pro wrestling anti-heel. Likewise, that will be the goalpost against Harris.

Except, Harris isn't an uncharismatic technocrat who can't stand on her own record while retaining progressive cred. She's an uncharismatic nepo-baby whose own record annihilates her progressive cred. Her nickname -- even among California Democrats -- before she rose to national politics wasn't "quid pro ho" for no reason, and you need your head examined if you think the name Willie Brown won't again deface national news against Trump. Same for, well, her entire career as DA and California AG.

That's why Trump is waiting until after the DNC to move forward with debate plans. His campaign is waiting to see how big a clusterfuck that will be, namely whether the DNC actually has some form of contest or simply coronates her Clinton-style, and whether that re-opens the liberal-progressive rift in the party. That fundamentally changes the strategy moving into the debates.

I agree, I don't know why everyone is so up in arms about Project 2025 and stating that it's gonna do all these things (most of which aren't even in there).

People damn well ought to be up in arms about Project 2025. Just as they ought to be up in arms about ALEC, PNAC, and the nefarious activities of a dozen other oligarch-funded asshole farms. Except, I understand Project 2025 for what it is: a front to distract the country with a bunch of dumbass culture war bullshit, while quietly passing a minority of "less controversial" oligarch-friendly police state policies (to which Democrats will gleefully acquiesce in the name of "compromise").

But if republicans actually do all that shit, there's gonna be like the biggest blue wave in history. In the end, what are you actually worried about then? And that blue wave will not just last for a single election cycle either, it will be longer than that. If I was a democrat, I'd basically be like "bring it!".

I'm not worried, I know exactly what's going to happen. Democrats are busy saving the GOP from itself on the dumb culture war bullshit like porn, because if they ever get that blue wave they have to deliver results -- and after twelve years of diddly shit under Obama and Biden marked by the most intense infighting and ratfucking since the New Deal, the Democratic party as we know it can scarcely afford another Congressional term with the presidency and majorities in House and Senate.

Never forget the Democratic party's biggest political enemy isn't the Republicans, it's its own base. We're talking about the party that openly colludes with Republicans to block policy proposals supported by 90% of Democratic voters.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

JD Vance keeps having to defend years of calling childless people "sociopaths" who "have no stake in the future of America". Kind of funny, considering how far astray the Republican party has gone from it's conservationist roots to embrace "drill, baby, drill" and trash anything remotely pro-environment. I'm doing more to keep their kids from living in a chaotic hell than they are.

 

[Gergar12]

For those of you that don't like Sec State Blinken, Nat Sec Jake Sullivan, and Def Sec Austin even.

In my opinion, she shouldn't try to get rid of Austin, he's pretty reserved.

But yes, do go on about how VP Harris is a warmonger, which is a Trump ally RFK talking point.

 

[Agema]

I was rather indifferent the last two times. I didn't vote for Trump in 2016, and I voted Trump out of pity for Biden in 2020 knowing the presidency would do terrible things to him and otherwise the system would keep running through either administration.

Really? I would put forward another suggestion.

I think you are a very strong Republican partisan. You abstained in 2016 because you had old-fashioned notions of what the Republicans believed in - party of Lincoln, Eisenhower, etc. - and found Trump very uncomfortable. But that party loyalty really, really counts. You want them to win. And so as Trump has taken over the party so you have reconciled yourself to Trump. Nevertheless, nor can you avoid that he is in many ways an amoral shitshow, and thus you have rationalised yourself an alternative excuse to throw your support behind him.

 

[tstorm823]

Really? I would put forward another suggestion.

I think you are a very strong Republican partisan. You abstained in 2016 because you had old-fashioned notions of what the Republicans believed in - party of Lincoln, Eisenhower, etc. - and found Trump very uncomfortable. But that party loyalty really, really counts. You want them to win. And so as Trump has taken over the party so you have reconciled yourself to Trump. Nevertheless, nor can you avoid that he is in many ways an amoral shitshow, and thus you have rationalised yourself an alternative excuse to throw your support behind him.

Ok, but your suggestion is really, really dumb, and mine is accurate.

 

[Agema]

Ok, but your suggestion is really, really dumb, and mine is accurate.

You think so? You say that people only believe certain things because they hate Trump, and that's effectively the same reasoning. You shouldn't believe yourself immune from the same forces you claim motivate others.

The idea that the government has mobilised against Trump such that his election would be a vindication of democracy is at best questionable. Half of the USA's political force is Trump's own party with all its vast power and influence at his fingertips. It's bizarre to call elements of the US government "weaponised" against Trump whilst at the same time accepting he has brought some of it on himself. In terms of the judiciary, he has been given remarkable support from members of the judiciary (several of which he appointed). Even the claim that the media are against him is highly questionable, as if there isn't a vast mesh of heavily-accessed right-wing media outlets that back him.

Trump is one of the elites, with heavy backing from the other elites and the plentiful resources they throw behind getting their way. He's every bit part of the right-wing institution, not an outsider.

 

[tstorm823]

You think so? You say that people only believe certain things because they hate Trump, and that's effectively the same reasoning. You shouldn't believe yourself immune from the same forces you claim motivate others.

By people you mean just you. Everybody else here is relatively consistent, you are the singular user who will defend the exact same actions Trump takes so long as it's literally anyone else taking them.

The idea that the government has mobilised against Trump such that his election would be a vindication of democracy is at best questionable.

I understand this is a timeline that isn't possible because of the nature of the events themselves, but if something like January 6th had happened before the 2020 election, would you not consider Joe Biden's victory vindicative?

 

[Agema]

By people you mean just you. Everybody else here is relatively consistent, you are the singular user who will defend the exact same actions Trump takes so long as it's literally anyone else taking them.

Are you seriously arguing that no-one else here broadly has the same beliefs on Trump that I do? You might have mostly argued with me, but the majority of everyone else who offered comment here thought much the same I did.

And what, precisely, is the lack of consistency? Did another president ask a leader of another country to launch legal actions against his political opponents? Did another POTUS / VP knowingly have huge amounts of confidential documents lying around at home and waved them at non-cleared individuals? Did another president rabble-rouse a mob to march on Congress? Has another president so obviously committed so much fraud (not necessarily in office)?

Also, I note your lack of denial.

I understand this is a timeline that isn't possible because of the nature of the events themselves, but if something like January 6th had happened before the 2020 election, would you not consider Joe Biden's victory vindicative?

I don't think a one-off riot by a few thousand fired-up yahoos is comparable to the mass, institutional force of the government.

 

[tstorm823]

Are you seriously arguing that no-one else here broadly has the same beliefs on Trump that I do? You might have mostly argued with me, but the majority of everyone else who offered comment here thought much the same I did.

None of them defend Lyndon Johnson, that's the difference. Trump does nothing that other politicians haven't already done before him, but you defend them and attack him. I defend most politicians not named Lyndon Johnson. Most people here condemn most politicians including Trump. You are the outlier that will defend LBJ while attacking DJT for behavior that's less than half as bad.

And what, precisely, is the lack of consistency? Did another president ask a leader of another country to launch legal actions against his political opponents? Did another POTUS / VP knowingly have huge amounts of confidential documents lying around at home and waved them at non-cleared individuals? Did another president rabble-rouse a mob to march on Congress? Has another president so obviously committed so much fraud (not necessarily in office)?

Yes, to every one of those things (in a general sense). Yes, politicians have gotten foreign powers to take sides in campaigns. Yes, every president in history has had confidential documents in their homes and showed whoever happened to be there. Yes, presidents have had mobs in support of them at Congress. (Hell, Bill Clinton pardoned people for literally bombing Congress once.) Yes, they've all committed fraud, and insider trading, and election finance violations. Yes, yes, and yes. All yes.

Here's a fun aside: Josh Shapiro, the governor of my state, I already had some resentment for doing two of my least favorite things: suing the Catholic Church (he as PA AG took the Little Sisters of the Poor all the way to the Supreme Court a second time to try to make them pay for contraceptives despite the Supreme Court having already said they didn't have to) and interfering in the other party's primary (he spent more money from his campaign advertising the eventual losing Republican nominee, Doug Mastriano, than anyone in the Republican field spent on their own campaign; they say they were campaigning against him, but the ads were "he's too conservative, he opposes abortion, and Democrats don't like him", which are all positives in a Republican primary).

Anyway, there is currently a lawsuit going because a big chunk of his campaign was funded by the teachers' union, which is illegal. The Pennsylvania State Educators' Association (PSEA) is the teachers union, they created a new organization called the Fund for Student Success which receives funds only from the union and donates only to political causes. In 2022, $1.47 million went from the PSEA through the FSS to the Democratic Governors Association, who then gave $7.5 million to Shapiro for his campaign, more than Mastriano's entire campaign budget. This is what we're working with here, people funneling secret money from unknowing school teachers directly into political campaigns, and this is not only not being condemned nationally, the guy who benefitted is on the short list for Harris' running mate. And you think the rest of these people aren't comparable to Trump...

 

[Agema]

None of them defend Lyndon Johnson, that's the difference.

Trump does nothing that other politicians haven't already done before him, but you defend them and attack him. I defend most politicians not named Lyndon Johnson. Most people here condemn most politicians including Trump. You are the outlier that will defend LBJ while attacking DJT for behavior that's less than half as bad.

Yes, to every one of those things (in a general sense). Yes, politicians have gotten foreign powers to take sides in campaigns. Yes, every president in history has had confidential documents in their homes and showed whoever happened to be there. Yes, presidents have had mobs in support of them at Congress. (Hell, Bill Clinton pardoned people for literally bombing Congress once.) Yes, they've all committed fraud, and insider trading, and election finance violations. Yes, yes, and yes. All yes.

This is all a massive argument of false equivalence. Look at what you're writing: "have had mobs in support of them at Congress" is very different from deliberately summoning a mob to Washington, whipping them up into a frenzy, and then explicitly directing them to march on Congress to pressure Congress into not honouring an election result.

I'm absolutely sure some presidents have done some of these things, just generally fewer, of less severe magnitude. An argument that approximates to "Trump has as many sins as the last ten presidents combined" does not exculpate Trump, it condemns him.

 

[tstorm823]

This is all a massive argument of false equivalence. Look at what you're writing: "have had mobs in support of them at Congress" is very different from deliberately summoning a mob to Washington, whipping them up into a frenzy, and then explicitly directing them to march on Congress to pressure Congress into not honouring an election result.

Lol, that didn't happen.

I'm absolutely sure some presidents have done some of these things, just generally fewer, of less severe magnitude. An argument that approximates to "Trump has as many sins as the last ten presidents combined" does not exculpate Trump, it condemns him.

Lol, that's not anything of what I said.

 

[Agema]

Lol, that didn't happen.

Except it did happen, didn't it?

You can question whether Trump intended them to attack and sack the Capitol. But he most certainly set that train in motion, and judging by the attested evidence he sat around watching the riot on TV and refusing to help, he seemed perfectly happy that they did sack it.

Lol, that's not anything of what I said.

Whether or not it's what you said, it is what you do. Trump does something bad, and you claim a president - any president - has done something relatively similar (and even then sometimes not as severe). What this is effectively doing is defending Trump's misconduct through comparison to multiple presidents' misconduct.

In many ways, LBJ is perhaps an ideal comparison for Trump: a vast raft of personal failings such as sexual assault, fraud, habitual dishonesty, crudeness and insults. Arguably, Trump is very similar to LBJ... except without the competence and policy accomplishments. And yet it's funny that you won't offer LBJ an inch, but fall over yourself to offer excuses for Trump on so many issues. It's your inconsistency, not mine.

 

[CriticalGaming]

x.com

x.com

Kamala has the WAP lady and Trump has Hulk Hogan? What the fuck are we even doing, this election is a fuck circus.