POTUS 2024 - Harris vs Trump - General Election Discussion

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

We absolutely must show more respect to the lady who helped kill a million innocent civilians so her family's business could profit.

Good lord, out of all the terrible shit he says, why focus on the one thing that he is actually right about? He's baiting you into defending Liz Cheney of all people.

Nobody is defending Liz Cheney, but at least she has more balls than 99% of Republican men and any other person saying this about a political rival would get the same blowback. The only difference is it has no impact on Trumps appeal to his base.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Nobody is defending Liz Cheney, but at least she has more balls than 99% of Republican men and any other person saying this about a political rival would get the same blowback. The only difference is it has no impact on Trumps appeal to his base.

He called her a chickenhawk who hides in a nice building in Washington while young Americans get shot at. That she's a coward for not going and fighting herself. It's a common argument anti-war people have made for decades.

Like I don't think he's smart enough to understand what he did but I can't believe how many people fell for this trap.

[Lathum]

Seems a bit hypocritical coming from a 5 times draft dodger, no?

[RainMaker]

He's running as the anti-war candidate here, so no. He didn't vote for the war and he's not campaigning with the family who are most responsible for it.

[Passacaglia]

I agree. It really takes the attention away from his "Israel should finish the job" comments.

[JPhillips]

Also takes away attention from his we should invade Mexico comments.

[Lathum]

Well how will we be in wars when we are going to be busy deploying the military on our own citizens?

[RainMaker]

Those are bad things too and Harris should be talking about them instead of campaigning with the Cheney family.

[RainMaker]

Actually she can't talk about some of them because she supports that stuff too I guess.

[BYU 14]

Invading Mexico and deploying American troops against citizen's? I missed that on her agenda.

[Swaggs]

Liz Cheney called on Dubya to speak out today. Probably the best move for classic conservatism, if you think about it.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I won't post in here anymore.

[JPhillips]

JFC

Trump: That beautiful white skin that I have would be nice and tan. I have the whitest skin because I never have time to go out in the sun. I have that beautiful white. It could’ve been beautiful tan. pic.twitter.com/EWteCNVahP

— Acyn (@Acyn) November 1, 2024

[GrantDawg]

PredictIt has moved Harris ahead, and Trump has dropped 6% on Polymarket. What does that mean? The people that pumped those stocks are dumping to pull their cash out from the suckers. What does that mean for the election? Absolutely nothing.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

PredictIt has moved Harris ahead, and Trump has dropped 6% on Polymarket. What does that mean? The people that pumped those stocks are dumping to pull their cash out from the suckers. What does that mean for the election? Absolutely nothing.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Apparently one dude in France has pumped $50 million into polymarket on Trump and had fucked the odds up.

[GrantDawg]

W.....T....F...



[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I have come to just accept that a large portion of the country either embraces his ideology or lacks the morals and enable it so eggs are thirty cents cheaper.

I truly will never understand how he has so much support, and IF we survive this chapter of our history this era will be looked upon along with the civil war as the most shameless time in our history.

To add on to this string of conversation, could have quoted other people here but I just picked one:

I've said it before, but I think this mindset just drastically underestimates how unacceptable the modern Democratic Party is to some people. Trump has a certain amount of support from people who really like him, but a lot of his support is from people who don't. They think the alternative is even worse. Goes back to when we were talking about the whole 'weird' segment of the campaign. Too many people, including some on this board, get locked into the whole 'we're the normal ones' way of thinking and can't/won't see that to a sizable number of people, it's 'us' who are the weird/dangerous element. To them, Trump isn't good but he's far less dangerous.

[Passacaglia]

What do you mean by the Modern Democratic Party? Democrats have been in the White House for 20 of the last 32 years, and their biggest achievement, ACA, is pretty well liked. How dangerous can it be?

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

What do you mean by the Modern Democratic Party? Democrats have been in the White House for 20 of the last 32 years, and their biggest achievement, ACA, is pretty well liked. How dangerous can it be?

It's dangerous because Fox News says so.

[JPhillips]

The racist mf.

Trump: Your team is very good. I would say the Greek is a seriously good player, do you agree? And tell me, who has more Greek in him? The Greek or me? I think we have about the same right? pic.twitter.com/axhaziqNta

— Acyn (@Acyn) November 2, 2024

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

To add on to this string of conversation, could have quoted other people here but I just picked one:

I've said it before, but I think this mindset just drastically underestimates how unacceptable the modern Democratic Party is to some people. Trump has a certain amount of support from people who really like him, but a lot of his support is from people who don't. They think the alternative is even worse. Goes back to when we were talking about the whole 'weird' segment of the campaign. Too many people, including some on this board, get locked into the whole 'we're the normal ones' way of thinking and can't/won't see that to a sizable number of people, it's 'us' who are the weird/dangerous element. To them, Trump isn't good but he's far less dangerous.

I don't think that really captures the amount of people who do support him. Just a couple of days ago I saw a poll where 70% of GOPers thought Trump was a good role-model for kids.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

W.....T....F...



He'll end up owing the mic $130k

[Ghost Econ]

I think I got banned from my barbershop. The guy in the seat behind me was talking all kinds of shit about Kamala and eventually said something about how she'd be attractive if she shut her mouth.

As I was leaving my guy asked about early voting and I said something about how I was voting for Kamala so that hopefully those pieces of garbage Biden was talking about would shut the fuck up. The other barber asked what did he say, and I just thanked my guy and walked out.

Since the other guy is the owner I'm assuming I can't really go back, but I sat there for 30 minutes while those dumb racists fucks wouldn't shut the hell up. As a white dude, I get why people hate us because we think we can do or say whatever we want without any consequences.

[Lathum]

I’m a middle aged bearded white dude in a red area. People always assume I’m maga and it drives me nuts.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

What do you mean by the Modern Democratic Party? Democrats have been in the White House for 20 of the last 32 years, and their biggest achievement, ACA, is pretty well liked. How dangerous can it be?

I mean what those words literally mean. ACA is pretty well-liked, roughly 60% of people support it. That means 40%ish don't. It's not the only thing around either. People have varying opinions on how the pandemic was handled, in changes to transgender and similar issues, on how inflation was dealt with and who/what to blame for it, on whether we should be doing anything about climate change, on how we should handle minorities and immigration, on and on it goes.

When you look at Trump and say 'he's an asshole, but what Democrats are proposing is unacceptable' which way do you go if you're a 'lesser of two evils' person? We've talked before on the board about candidates who didn't follow Trump and people say they did 'the right thing', but I'd never vote for them because of other policies they believe in. We see it all the time right on this board. Most people, even most of those who say otherwhise, don't actually highly value candidates of character. They value candidates who will do and say the things they want done on some issue and don't care about anything else, so when bad things happen they blame the people in charge regardless of whether they actually did it. When the people in charge propose or do things they don't like, they look for alternatives no matter how terrible the alternative might be, it feels preferable to what they have now and know they don't like.

[PilotMan]

I would wager, that on a lifeboat with a bunch of survivors who happen to be trump supporters, that he wouldn't be elected as the leader of the boat.



Now, I have no proof of it, but a lot of his support comes from people who have nothing to fear from his leadership style. I'd bet that if they did, that they would start to evaluate through a different lens.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I mean what those words literally mean. ACA is pretty well-liked, roughly 60% of people support it. That means 40%ish don't. It's not the only thing around either. People have varying opinions on how the pandemic was handled, in changes to transgender and similar issues, on how inflation was dealt with and who/what to blame for it, on whether we should be doing anything about climate change, on how we should handle minorities and immigration, on and on it goes.

When you look at Trump and say 'he's an asshole, but what Democrats are proposing is unacceptable' which way do you go if you're a 'lesser of two evils' person? We've talked before on the board about candidates who didn't follow Trump and people say they did 'the right thing', but I'd never vote for them because of other policies they believe in. We see it all the time right on this board. Most people, even most of those who say otherwhise, don't actually highly value candidates of character. They value candidates who will do and say the things they want done on some issue and don't care about anything else, so when bad things happen they blame the people in charge regardless of whether they actually did it. When the people in charge propose or do things they don't like, they look for alternatives no matter how terrible the alternative might be, it feels preferable to what they have now and know they don't like.

I don't think the things you've described could be called "dangerous" - they seem more like disagreements, as you call them now. But honestly, forgetting the idea of who's weird or whatever, I can't imagine any issue being so important someone would vote for a guy who says undocumented immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our country" (just picking one off the top of my head). The economy, abortion, even wars that are bad but have a thin veil of well-meaningness, none of that is more important than making sure we absolutely do not support that kind of hate. Once we're not doing that, we can worry about the other stuff.

[JPhillips]

I understand the impulse to say, o I'm not garbage, but I'll never understand those that are screaming you're goddamn right I'm garbage and dressing up in trash bags.

[miked]

I mean, it seems like each time a "modern democrat" is in the White House, people have prospered. Deficits have been cut and spending is about the same. People who think voting for an autocrat who wants to use the military to ignore election results is better than "the traitorous democrats" are just plain stupid. I mean, they even benefit from the alleged "open borders", despite the fact that Obama had reduced border crossings. There is not an economist around that will tell you we are saved if we kick everyone out, which is why nobody actually wants to go on the record voting for it.

If you yell lies at gullible people loud enough and for enough time, it becomes truth.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't think that really captures the amount of people who do support him. Just a couple of days ago I saw a poll where 70% of GOPers thought Trump was a good role-model for kids.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I understand the impulse to say, o I'm not garbage, but I'll never understand those that are screaming you're goddamn right I'm garbage and dressing up in trash bags.

I don't know how better define either of these things than "weird."

Originally Posted by Lathum

I’m a middle aged bearded white dude in a red area. People always assume I’m maga and it drives me nuts.

Me, too. The level of racism that just casually falls out of people's mouths is shocking. Rarely if ever happened before 2016, but Trump gave people permission to be openly racist again.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think Trump has seen the "your vote is your secret" ads targeting women living with Trumper men... pic.twitter.com/cGCIuv7vb2

— Clara Jeffery (@ClaraJeffery) November 1, 2024

Oh he's definitely seen them:

Trump: "Can you imagine a wife not telling a husband who she's voting for? Did you ever hear anything like that? Even if you had a horrible -- if you had a bad relationship, you're gonna tell your husband." pic.twitter.com/gd5of817VY

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 2, 2024

Probably also saw and laughed about that slimy Fox host likening his wife (hypothetically) voting for Harris to having an affair. Which is ironic because his current wife was his affair.

[JPhillips]

The Texas governor is telling the feds that Texas law doesn't allow them in polling places.

I don' think it works that way.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Me, too. The level of racism that just casually falls out of people's mouths is shocking. Rarely if ever happened before 2016, but Trump gave people permission to be openly racist again.

Definitely not garbage, or deplorable though.

[Ghost Econ]

I mean, they're white people, and they're garbage. They're literally white trash. The descriptor was never inaccurate.

[Qwikshot]

Still trying to understand what's so dangerous about the Democrats policy...when we've seen how dangerous Trumpanzees are in power.

[cuervo72]

The Cuban-American parents I knew from Cub Scouts were certain that we would be Communist under Biden.

[whomario]

Speaking of garbage. Imagine Newt Gingrich lecturing people about a "sense of morality" and lying to their spouses

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by whomario

Probably also saw and laughed about that slimy Fox host likening his wife (hypothetically) voting for Harris to having an affair. Which is ironic because his current wife was his affair.

The best thing about that Jesse Watters take is that, in the past, he's bragged about how he let the air out of one of the tires of his first wife's vehicle to force her to ask him for a ride home one day and that led to them dating. A few years later he got caught having an affair with a producer on his show and he's now married to her.

[Thomkal]

Don't have a link to the actual article, but the NYTimes polling "guru" Nate Cohn says that pollsters are scared about being wrong about Trump again, so to protect their polling company/newspaper/reputation, they are purposedly ignoring polling results that show Harris with a larger lead because how can they believe their own results when it shows Harris at +7, and therefore they report more toss-up and Republican leading numbers than they should.


So as I've said before, totally ignore polls, none of them can be considered completely accurate or trustworthy-so don't panic over one that show bad things for your preferred Candidate, and encourage everyone to vote.



x.com

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The Texas governor is telling the feds that Texas law doesn't allow them in polling places.

I don' think it works that way.

I swear I saw this exact same thing about Florida. Something tells me they're comparing notes.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Don't have a link to the actual article, but the NYTimes polling "guru" Nate Cohn says that pollsters are scared about being wrong about Trump again, so to protect their polling company/newspaper/reputation, they are purposedly ignoring polling results that show Harris with a larger lead because how can they believe their own results when it shows Harris at +7, and therefore they report more toss-up and Republican leading numbers than they should.


So as I've said before, totally ignore polls, none of them can be considered completely accurate or trustworthy-so don't panic over one that show bad things for your preferred Candidate, and encourage everyone to vote.



x.com

The issue I have with this sort of thing is that if Harris outperforms the current polls by just say around 2-3%, sweeping all or nearly all of the typical swing states, grabs NC and/or GA, ending up with 300+ EV when “EVEN THE
LIB POLLS SAID IT WAS SUPER CLOSE!!! THIS IS SUCH OBVIOUS CHEETING!!!” The very fact of a “big” (EC-wise) win when the polls said “super duper close and leaning toward Trump near the end” would be taken as proof of cheating.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

The issue I have with this sort of thing is that if Harris outperforms the current polls by just say around 2-3%, sweeping all or nearly all of the typical swing states, grabs NC and/or GA, ending up with 300+ EV when “EVEN THE
LIB POLLS SAID IT WAS SUPER CLOSE!!! THIS IS SUCH OBVIOUS CHEETING!!!” The very fact of a “big” (EC-wise) win when the polls said “super duper close and leaning toward Trump near the end” would be taken as proof of cheating.

Yep in practically every filing/post about the charges against him, Trump proclaims that the polls have him ahead so you know he's going to use polls to try to prove that the Dems are cheating.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Don't have a link to the actual article, but the NYTimes polling "guru" Nate Cohn says that pollsters are scared about being wrong about Trump again, so to protect their polling company/newspaper/reputation, they are purposedly ignoring polling results that show Harris with a larger lead because how can they believe their own results when it shows Harris at +7, and therefore they report more toss-up and Republican leading numbers than they should.

So as I've said before, totally ignore polls, none of them can be considered completely accurate or trustworthy-so don't panic over one that show bad things for your preferred Candidate, and encourage everyone to vote.

x.com

Nate Silver said the same thing. Something is off abiut the polling.

We ran the numbers. Even if all 7 swing states are actually tied, there's only a ~1 in 9.5 trillion chance~ that so many polls would show such a close race. 🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑 pic.twitter.com/X131aHveRR

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 1, 2024

[JPhillips]

It was very odd a couple of weeks ago when several high quality polls all came out tied.