2024 U.S. Elections | Trump v Harris

Unless im missing something, the way to win an elections is to get as many voters as possible.
You don't get extra points for a voter who is "politically engaged" or has a tighter grip on the issues.

Your statement "but I think if only people who cared about actual politics voted, the world would be a better place. " is bizarre too.

You think it would be better to somehow test people first to see who "cares more" ?

And what does care more mean? There are Trump people who build their whole identity around supporting him. They care. But are they really educated on his policies and the consequences of such ? Do you want people to care, or be educated on policy in your utopian system ?

To say....


... is ridiculous. It is like saying that the only people that should watch football are those who understand the intricacies of tactics and have encyclopedic knowledge of each and every player, team and manager.

I think you give people less credit than they deserve. Do people know every line in each parties platform? No, and to be honest, nor do I. But people have a good sense of what each party and leader stand for and they vote accordingly. And maybe some vote against their own interests because the candidate makes them "feel good" - as Trump does for his supporters.

And of all things in this election to get triggered about, you chose a pretty harmless, run of the mill, endorsement video from Obama and Harris.

Democracy is not a perfect, but it is the best system we have.
You are of course right, and no, I don't think there should be some sort of test, or barrier to entry (as I said in my follow up) it was more me lamenting the cynical nature of modern politics and wording it poorly, rather than trying to come up with a realistic solution.

I'm also in no way trying to imply that phone call has any semblance to anything approaching the insa ity that os the republican side of things.

My initial post was mostly aimed at the fact that politics are now entertainment, and they shouldn't be. Too many politicians are in it, just to win, not to actually change things.

It's just all so fecking absurd.

I do appreciate you cared to go further than just calling me 14 :lol:
 
Last edited:
People who "really care" about politics are among the most insane groups of voters. Lower turnout elections don't lead to more rational or objective results (whatever that would even mean), but to insane reactionary bullshit.
Care wasnt the right word. What I was trying to say is that politicians are only doing things to become popular instead of doing things to improve society.

Policy has become a distant second to looking good on Twitter. I get that getting everyone to vote for you regardless of how is how you win an election, but it would be super awesome if politicians also had an inkling on how to function after actually being elected.

Hell, I'm not sure what I was getting at anyway.

I'll just take the L :p
 
Bizarre.

Could imply that he plans to implement an autocracy.

But more likely he just wants them out to vote for him because in 4 years time, he doesn't give a feck who wins, as he doesn't really care about the Republican party or the country .

Unless he loses and runs again in 2028. Which you know he will if he loses.

Its more likely the latter given that Trump needs to win this time so he can cancel the federal criminal cases against him. Once that is done, he probably thinks he's in the clear.
 
Care wasnt the right word. What I was trying to say is that politicians are only doing things to become popular instead of doing things to improve society.

Policy has become a distant second to looking good on Twitter. I get that getting everyone to vote for you regardless of how is how you win an election, but it would be super awesome if politicians also had an inkling on how to function after actually being elected.

Hell, I'm not sure what I was getting at anyway.

I'll just take the L :p
I mostly agree, it's just that arguing about lowering turnout being a good thing is a bit of a pet peeve for me :P

I also don't really see this improving without nearly the entire discourse improving (and I would love to know how that could be done) and making people stop seeing politics like sports and constantly focusing on strategy instead of the actual impact of policies on communities they affect. I don't see any magical, simple solutions that improve that even in the short term.
 
Can we safely say that a large portion of Americans are perfectly okay with having a dictator? Because how is this cretin still ahead in the polls.
 
Can we safely say that a large portion of Americans are perfectly okay with having a dictator? Because how is this cretin still ahead in the polls.
The MAGA base would be perfectly fine with a Trump dictatorship.
 
The MAGA base would be perfectly fine with a Trump dictatorship.
Right up until it started enacting the measures laid out in Project2025. Right now they believe the bad things will only come for their “enemies”, but just wait till Social Security is stripped, Medicare is defunded, and federal dollars propping up red states disappear.
 
Probably Kelly or Walz. I think Shapiro won't be it.



Hoping it's Walz, Kelly is fine, but he is kind of an uninspiring speaker tbh, and Walz has an excellent record when it comes to labor-related issues.
 
Hoping it's Walz, Kelly is fine, but he is kind of an uninspiring speaker tbh, and Walz has an excellent record when it comes to labor-related issues.

Walz is the best talker out of all of them, which counts for a lot. Plus he comes across as a docile, obedient grandpa who wouldn't upstage Harris in anyway. Whereas the likes of Shapiro would definitely leave people scratching their heads as to why he isn't the Presidential candidate.
 
Another vote for Walz here. Much more affable and relatable character than the others (from what I've seen). Good mid-west governor, solid track record - like Raoul says has the gift of the gab.

I'd have Buttigieg as my second. Have a feeling Shapiro will be a bit of a divisive choice.
 
Another vote for Walz here. Much more affable and relatable character than the others (from what I've seen). Good mid-west governor, solid track record - like Raoul says has the gift of the gab.

I'd have Buttigieg as my second. Have a feeling Shapiro will be a bit of a divisive choice.

Seen a couple of interviews with him, seems really likeable as well as a good talker.

"Affable" is a fantastic word btw!
 
Vance called Trump Hitler, now he is doing his patriotic duty to sabotage the election to prevent him from getting power - would be an interesting reality to live in.
 
It’s Trump’s fault for selecting a VP based on the recommendation of his coke head son.
Yeah, looks like it was a very narrow circle that decided on Vance, rather than extensive consideration of stuff like which voter profiles Trump wasn't convincing for. All this crap just serves to consolidate a base that was already all-in anyway.
 
Shapiro would be a divisive choice given his pro Israel leaning.

Beshear, Kelly and Walz are all dependable choices.

Probably a bit too exotic, but Whitmer would have been a good choice too. All women ticket!

They're all going to be pro-Israel. The only reason Shapiro is being scrutinized is because he himself is Jewish, and that might be a bridge to far to have a POTUS with both Jewish husband and VP. At the end of the day it won't affect policy since all Dems are going to be pro-Israel.
 
They're all going to be pro-Israel. The only reason Shapiro is being scrutinized is because he himself is Jewish, and that might be a bridge to far to have a POTUS with both Jewish husband and VP. At the end of the day it won't affect policy since all Dems are going to be pro-Israel.

I think he has been the most vocal about this issue of the lot. Probably as you say, will get the most flak too.

Agree that the others would be better choices.

I don't think Schumer would be happy opening up the AZ Senate seat. So it's likely to be Walz (or Beshear if he's still in the mix)
 
I think he has been the most vocal about this issue of the lot. Probably as you say, will get the most flak too.

Agree that the others would be better choices.

I don't think Schumer would be happy opening up the AZ Senate seat. So it's likely to be Walz (or Beshear if he's still in the mix)

I'm liking Walz more each day. Seems like a pretty grounded guy who tells it as it is.
 
They're all going to be pro-Israel. The only reason Shapiro is being scrutinized is because he himself is Jewish, and that might be a bridge to far to have a POTUS with both Jewish husband and VP.
That's a really good point, @Raoul ! It's why everyone opposed to him would also oppose a potential VP Bernie. And why they are also pouring this scorn on JB Pritzker. It couldn't possibly be him comparing student protestors to the KKK and signing a bill punishing colleges from divesting from Israel. Or the contrast between his statements and, say, Walz's approach to the uncommitted vote in the primary.
 
My preferences given my reading of the situation (and what I’m hearing):
1. Walz~ Beshear> Kelly

2. Shapiro