2024 U.S. Elections | Trump v Harris

[NotThatSoph]

If that's your objection you can just add Kant's Universality principle. If everyone just believed their vote was irrelevant they wouldn't vote and it would affect the outcome.

You can't really add Kant's deontology to utilitarianism, seeing as they're diametrically opposed.

 

[Abizzz]

That analysis is extremely unclear. Unless the election is decided by literally one vote, you're not influencing the outcome and the utility derived from it is zero. You're basically left with the utility you get from it personally, plus signalling effects. One of those signals being that the Democrats can help kill as many people they want without losing your support.

Huh? Is the influence of any footballer not scoring the goal also zero!?

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

I think you can definitely frame it as a moral act. Utilitarian morality is fairly straightforward here even just on the single issue of Israel-Gaza. 40K dead is preferable to 80K dead even if both can be described as genocides. So it's definitely a moral act to vote to reduce deaths, and that's before even taking into account a host of other very important issues.

Sure but there is very little actual evidence that Dems/Trump is 40k vs 80k dead other than orangemanbad.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

Huh? Is the influence of any footballer not scoring the goal also zero!?

If one hundred million players were on the pitch, their influence would be limited.

 

[Abizzz]

If one hundred million players were on the pitch, their influence would be limited.

Yeah but unless the single person was on the pitch no would be...

 

[Beachryan]

Sure but there is very little actual evidence that Dems/Trump is 40k vs 80k dead other than orangemanbad.

So other than the evidence that the other guy has historically demonstrated the actual actions that would make things worse, has historically demonstrated that he has no understanding, awareness or more importantly caring for anything outside of his own skin, and the fact that this running mate's entire policy is to not do anything outside of the physical United States - yeah other than those entirely provable, factual things which use the past to indicate future events, you're right we have no evidence. It's not like he did anything controversial with regards to the middle east last time he was President.

This argument is juvenile: you never know! If we put Onana up front we might get more goals. You don't have evidence of the contrary!

We get it. Israel and the US's support of it is literally the worst thing on Earth at the present moment, and you feel obliged to tell US voters that because they're not solving it one vote at a time that in your eyes we're all morally bankrupt. Your dismay at the situation pushes nihilism in your impotence to impact change. It's frustrating, sad and an indictment of a great many things. But other than maybe making you feel a bit better, what does doing this again achieve?

There is no anti-Israel candidate you can vote for. Maybe there is in your country, I've no idea, but I hope so for your sake. I hope your countries have all cut off trade with Israel (they make far more from trading with the EU than from US subsidies) and that you're out there every day ensuring your leaders are implementing such bans in an effort to end the war. In fact as the US is the truly culpable one, you should probably stop trade with them to, right?

But in the end, on November 5th, the options are Harris or Trump. That's it.

 

[berbatrick]

So other than the evidence that the other guy has historically demonstrated the actual actions that would make things worse, has historically demonstrated that he has no understanding, awareness or more importantly caring for anything outside of his own skin, and the fact that this running mate's entire policy is to not do anything outside of the physical United States - yeah other than those entirely provable, factual things which use the past to indicate future events, you're right we have no evidence. It's not like he did anything controversial with regards to the middle east last time he was President.

This argument is juvenile: you never know! If we put Onana up front we might get more goals. You don't have evidence of the contrary!

We get it. Israel and the US's support of it is literally the worst thing on Earth at the present moment, and you feel obliged to tell US voters that because they're not solving it one vote at a time that in your eyes we're all morally bankrupt. Your dismay at the situation pushes nihilism in your impotence to impact change. It's frustrating, sad and an indictment of a great many things. But other than maybe making you feel a bit better, what does doing this again achieve?

There is no anti-Israel candidate you can vote for. Maybe there is in your country, I've no idea, but I hope so for your sake. I hope your countries have all cut off trade with Israel (they make far more from trading with the EU than from US subsidies) and that you're out there every day ensuring your leaders are implementing such bans in an effort to end the war. In fact as the US is the truly culpable one, you should probably stop trade with them to, right?

But in the end, on November 5th, the options are Harris or Trump. That's it.

this is a disgusting post on this topic. i hope you are forced to vote for your killer too.

 

[Beachryan]

this is a disgusting post on this topic. i hope you are forced to vote for your killer too.

Classy response. Feels fairly in line with the posters that share the sentiment of: if you vote in the US election, you literally have blood on your hands - in a thread about the US election, but hey ho.

Thanks for the contribution.

As ever with this discussion, it's dominated by people not posing solutions or offering anything constructive, simply lamenting the situation and lashing out at others.

 

[berbatrick]

Classy response. Feels fairly in line with the posters that share the sentiment of: if you vote in the US election, you literally have blood on your hands - in a thread about the US election, but hey ho.

Thanks for the contribution.

As ever with this discussion, it's dominated by people not posing solutions or offering anything constructive, simply lamenting the situation and lashing out at others.

The fact that this prospect is so alien to you that you can make sarcastic quips says a lot about the American position in the world and your capacity for empathy. As I said, I hope the former changes, who knows, maybe it'll mean a change in the latter, though I'm not holding my breath.

 

[NotThatSoph]

The fact that this prospect is so alien to you that you can make sarcastic quips says a lot about the American position in the world and your capacity for empathy. As I said, I hope the former changes, who knows, maybe it'll mean a change in the latter, though I'm not holding my breath.

And as always, it's so charming when tens of thousands of dead people are disregarded because "offering no solutions", while the same moral void is happy to disavow things he actually cares about; like anything Trump or other Republicans do. In those instances "this is bad" is perfectly fine to say, to everyone's surprise. Go a few years back and you'll find the same guy being heavily against the things he's ridiculing now, no solutions offered. It's so transparent the cringing physically hurts.

 

[Beachryan]

The fact that this prospect is so alien to you that you can make sarcastic quips says a lot about the American position in the world and your capacity for empathy. As I said, I hope the former changes, who knows, maybe it'll mean a change in the latter, though I'm not holding my breath.

I have posted dozens of times that I do not support Israel, think Netanyahu is a war criminal and wish the world would react accordingly. But it's not. That inaction is not restricted to one country, one VP or one voting block of people - except the Israelis. The only people that can fix this at this stage is the Israeli people, and depressingly all the word I hear coming out of there is that they're MORE for the conflict now than on October 6th of last year.

What I do not believe is that literally nothing else matters. Nor do I believe that there is an overall equivalency between Harris and Trump simply because of the conflict, and the US's inability to date to stop it.

This is a football forum, and you're posting in a thread about a hugely impactful US election coming up in under a month. And rather than discussing any number of issues around that election, some posters just come in here to accuse everyone involved of being genocidal. Go ahead and explain to me how that is in anyway constructive, helpful or achieving anything at all?

 

[Beachryan]

And as always, it's so charming when tens of thousands of dead people are disregarded because "offering no solutions", while the same moral void is happy to disavow things he actually cares about; like anything Trump or other Republicans do. In those instances "this is bad" is perfectly fine to say, to everyone's surprise. Go a few years back and you'll find the same guy being heavily against the things he's ridiculing now, no solutions offered. It's so transparent the cringing physically hurts.

Ah the personal attacks. Good stuff. Maybe do a search and see what you can find? I'm sure you can paint me - a random football forum poster - as having hypocritical views across a 20 years period. Well done.

I'll wait for how that is helpful to this discussion about..checks thread title...the US election.

Human beings have adapted to be able to compartmentalise because we have to, or else we'd all die. If I want to discuss the horrors of what is happening in the Middle East I do so - frequently - but I don't do it places where it offers nothing constructive to the conversation.

Can someone just explain to me: is the only moral solution in the upcoming US election to stay home?

 

[NotThatSoph]

Ah the personal attacks. Good stuff. Maybe do a search and see what you can find? I'm sure you can paint me - a random football forum poster - as having hypocritical views across a 20 years period. Well done.

I'll wait for how that is helpful to this discussion about..checks thread title...the US election.

Human beings have adapted to be able to compartmentalise because we have to, or else we'd all die. If I want to discuss the horrors of what is happening in the Middle East I do so - frequently - but I don't do it places where it offers nothing constructive to the conversation.

Can someone just explain to me: is the only moral solution in the upcoming US election to stay home?

You're complaining without offering solutions again. Did you forget that this is the deadliest sin, like you do literally every single time except when you want to defend the indefensible?

Just stop the act.

 

[Mike Smalling]

Are any of the people frequently advocating for abstaining on November 5th actually American? Genuine question.

 

[mariachi-19]

Can youse take your shit else where. There are threads to go into detail about issues in the Middle East. This is not the one.

 

[NotThatSoph]

Are any of the people frequently advocating for abstaining on November 5th actually American? Genuine question.

Some are, most are not. Just like the ones advocating for specific candidates.

 

[Abizzz]

Still waiting for the explanation of how votes don't actually count.

 

[Beachryan]

Some of Trump's ramblings in Detroit are genuinely amazing. While in Detroit, trying to get votes from people living there, he basically calls it a sh*thole and laments that the whole country would be this bad if Harris was President. It's an...odd strategy.

His thoughts on the rockets is also a masterclass in what happens to a decaying brain.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

Are any of the people frequently advocating for abstaining on November 5th actually American? Genuine question.

I am not American, but I lived in America for many years, my wife is American, my child is half-American, and people from both sides of my family live in America.

IMO people can and should vote for whoever they want, abstain, whatever. What I find depressing, funny, and telling is that some people (by no means all or even a majority here) simply refuse to budge on "Dems are competent and mean well" despite the last year comprehensively showing that this is not true.

 

[HTG]

I am not American, but I lived in America for many years, my wife is American, my child is half-American, and people from both sides of my family live in America.

IMO people can and should vote for whoever they want, abstain, whatever. What I find depressing, funny, and telling is that some people (by no means all or even a majority here) simply refuse to budge on "Dems are competent and mean well" despite the last year comprehensively showing that this is not true.

Do you really have the impression that people feel the dems are competent? Because usually, from what I’m reading, they are regarded as the slightly lesser of two evils and no more.

 

[Mike Smalling]

I am not American, but I lived in America for many years, my wife is American, my child is half-American, and people from both sides of my family live in America.

IMO people can and should vote for whoever they want, abstain, whatever. What I find depressing, funny, and telling is that some people (by no means all or even a majority here) simply refuse to budge on "Dems are competent and mean well" despite the last year comprehensively showing that this is not true.

Is that really you experience in this thread?

I feel like almost everyone recognizes the Democrats as being somewhat incompetent and definitely complicit in Israel's actions over the last year, but still the better option in the very narrow selection on offer in November. I don't generally see a lot of Democrat praising in this thread.

 

[Beachryan]

Is that really you experience in this thread?

I feel like almost everyone recognizes the Democrats as being somewhat incompetent and definitely complicit in Israel's actions over the last year, but still the better option in the very narrow selection on offer in November. I don't generally see a lot of Democrat praising in this thread.

I think the current adminstration has done a lot of good to great things, but has so severly botched the Israeli situation that almost all the credit is lost. The economy is literally the best in the world post-covid, the infastructure bill is generally good, and legislatively - despite not having the house - the country hasn't fallen apart. The biggest gripe is in inflation which is something incredibly difficult for a President to 'fix', and in fact has finally come down a bit.

The Trump candidacy is an absolute trainwreck, based entirely on personal grievance and offers no tangible plans outside of tarifs which every economist derides as a joke. There are literally hundreds of people he chose to serve in HIS administration who have not only refused to endorse him, but are signing their names against him. That alone should be disqualifying. But for Trump nothing is disqualifying, because really he's just a protest vote by generally bitter, white men and the predicament they find themselves in. It's like a weird Kafka-esque joke.

I also think the only way the US can actually improve is to fundamentally fix the systemic issues that prevent politicians being incentivised to improve voters' lives. End the filibuster, end the electoral college, introduce term limits for all elected positions (including SC), eliminate gerrymandering, end Citizens United, introduce maximium campaign lengths and so forth. All of these things are popular and possible, but we as an electorate believe the lie that we can't change the system or the constitution and the status quo.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

So other than the evidence that the other guy has historically demonstrated the actual actions that would make things worse, has historically demonstrated that he has no understanding, awareness or more importantly caring for anything outside of his own skin, and the fact that this running mate's entire policy is to not do anything outside of the physical United States - yeah other than those entirely provable, factual things which use the past to indicate future events, you're right we have no evidence. It's not like he did anything controversial with regards to the middle east last time he was President.

This argument is juvenile: you never know! If we put Onana up front we might get more goals. You don't have evidence of the contrary!

The facts of the matter are quite clear: this is the deadliest episode in the history of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, by far, and it has happened under the administration of Joe Biden. That is the evidence.


I'l give you a better football analogy. Manchester United's current manager is Eric Ten Hag. Manchester United's previous manager was Ole. A person could reasonably argue than Ten Hag is a better manager than Ole, on the basis of the job they both did at United, the job they've done at other clubs, and so forth. I think that's a generally uncontroversial opinion.

Now, we know for a fact that under Ten Hag's management, United lost 7-0 to Liverpool, the biggest defeat against Liverpool in the history of the club. What people are arguing here is that because Ten Hag is better than Ole, it must mean that if Ole had managed United during that game, they would have lost 14-0.

 

[Beachryan]

The facts of the matter are quite clear: this is the deadliest episode in the history of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, by far, and it has happened under the administration of Joe Biden. That is the evidence.

I'l give you a better football analogy. Manchester United's current manager is Eric Ten Hag. Manchester United's previous manager was Ole. A person could reasonably argue than Ten Hag is a better manager than Ole, on the basis of the job they both did at United, the job they've done at other clubs, and so forth. I think that's a generally uncontroversial opinion.

Now, we know for a fact that under Ten Hag's management, United lost 7-0 to Liverpool, the biggest defeat against Liverpool in the history of the club. What people are arguing here is that because Ten Hag is better than Ole, it must mean that if Ole had managed United during that game, they would have lost 14-0.

Do you honestly believe Biden being President empowered Hamas on the evening of October 6th? If so, then I can see this argument. If you honestly believe maybe the Hamas leadership would have seen Trump in the WH and not gone ahead with plans, then yes, I agree that would make Biden a major catalyst in what has happened. And you can make the same claim - bit harder given Trump's love for Putin - on Ukraine.

As to your analogy, I don't really follow it as we have plenty of evidence that Ole wouldn't have lost 14-0, because he played Liverpool many times. I'm not quite sure how many times under Trump Hamas committed the largest single attack on Israeli civilians in history that we can use a reference point to forecast his reaction and support of the subsequent Netanyahu actions.

Technically of course you are correct. Maybe a Trump presidency would have stood up against Netanyahu, bravely fought for a limited reaction from Israel and then swept in with grand plans to finally push through a peaceful two-state solution, and dedicated his reamining time in office pushing a policy of peace and reconciliation between conflicting peoples.

 

[matherto]

Strolling down to the community centre to cast your vote for the slightly lesser of two evil genocidal regimes is not what I would classify as an exercise in maturity. One of desperation and exasperation perhaps but either way you are still giving the go ahead to people who are enabling an ever widening campaign of mass rape, murder and mutilation of children.

I don't blame anyone who sees it as the only choice to make but I can't see the framing of it as a moral or mature act.

One of them is going to win either way and both are going to support genocide, so what do you do besides abstain and watch as one of them wins either way...

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

Do you honestly believe Biden being President empowered Hamas on the evening of October 6th? If so, then I can see this argument. If you honestly believe maybe the Hamas leadership would have seen Trump in the WH and not gone ahead with plans, then yes, I agree that would make Biden a major catalyst in what has happened. And you can make the same claim - bit harder given Trump's love for Putin - on Ukraine.

Biden has publicly claimed that the Saudi-Israel normalization deal that his administration was pushing for was one of the major catalysts of the war:

"One of the reasons Hamas moved on Israel ... they knew that I was about to sit down with the Saudis. [...] It wouldn’t be a surprise that part of the motivation (for the attack) may have been to disrupt efforts to bring Saudi Arabia and Israel together."

As for whether Hamas would have done it under a Trump admin: not sure why you're asking me this. I am not arguing that things would be better under Donald Trump.


My complaint here is that people keep insisting "this would be an even worse disaster under Trump" even as the situation grows more and more disastrous, far beyond anything they ever expected. The Biden administration could launch World War 3 and wipe out the entire Middle East with nukes and you'd still have people saying that under Trump it would be worse because he'd also bomb Jamaica or something.

 

[Raoul]

 

[Mike Smalling]

My complaint here is that people keep insisting "this would be an even worse disaster under Trump" even as the situation grows more and more disastrous, far beyond anything they ever expected. The Biden administration could launch World War 3 and wipe out the entire Middle East with nukes and you'd still have people saying that under Trump it would be worse because he'd also bomb Jamaica or something.

Yeah, there's a difference between looking backwards and forwards on this. "It would have been worse" is a bit meaningless. I'd still say that the chance of improving the situation lies more with electing Harris than Trump, which is also why Netanyahu clearly wants Trump elected. Perhaps it's not a major difference and far too much damage has already been done, but I would think Harris is more likely to condition military aid than Trump. She is obviously quite careful in how she speaks about it given the election coming up, and there is also the fact that she is not currently the president, so publicly diverging from Biden's line would become a story she might not be interested in.

 

[Raoul]

Yeah, there's a difference between looking backwards and forwards on this. "It would have been worse" is a bit meaningless. I'd still say that the chance of improving the situation lies more with electing Harris than Trump, which is also why Netanyahu clearly wants Trump elected. Perhaps it's not a major difference and far too much damage has already been done, but I would think Harris is more likely to condition military aid than Trump. She is obviously quite careful in how she speaks about it given the election coming up, and there is also the fact that she is not currently the president, so publicly diverging from Biden's line would become a story she might not be interested in.

She wouldn’t be particularly different than Biden. All Presidents are apportioned a finite amount of political capital to advance their broad policy agendas, which usually means they need the support of Congress to move policy. This results in a dynamic whereby presidents are not incentivized to take actions that would estrange them from key members of Congress who they need to push their agenda in the House and Senate. What this means for Middle East policy is that Harris would be more incentivized to double down on the status quo than rock the boat by being perceived as not supporting Israel.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

I find it more reprehensible that people are calling out other people for being morally bankrupt because their #1 issue isn't American voters #1 issue.

I personally would weigh in Middle Eastern events into my voting in UK elections, the vast majority of people do not because it's so far removed from their daily life and they have far far far bigger priorities to worry about.

There's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Raoul]

 

[Raoul]

I find it more reprehensible that people are calling out other people for being morally bankrupt because their #1 issue isn't American voters #1 issue.

I personally would weigh in Middle Eastern events into my voting in UK elections, the vast majority of people do not because it's so far removed from their daily life and they have far far far bigger priorities to worry about.

There's nothing wrong with that.

Very true. A vast majority of Americans outside the social media bubble are either agnostic or simply don’t care about things happening half way around the world, and are instead more interested the economics of day to day life.

 

[Beachryan]

I find it more reprehensible that people are calling out other people for being morally bankrupt because their #1 issue isn't American voters #1 issue.

I personally would weigh in Middle Eastern events into my voting in UK elections, the vast majority of people do not because it's so far removed from their daily life and they have far far far bigger priorities to worry about.

There's nothing wrong with that.

I agree and was clearly badly trying to articulate the same.

 

[maniak]

Any chance we can not do this again? You literally come in here once a month and say the exact same thing to the same people. We get it.

People who refuse to support genocide being called children and irrational is proof you don't get it.

 

[NotThatSoph]

I find it more reprehensible that people are calling out other people for being morally bankrupt because their #1 issue isn't American voters #1 issue.

I personally would weigh in Middle Eastern events into my voting in UK elections, the vast majority of people do not because it's so far removed from their daily life and they have far far far bigger priorities to worry about.

There's nothing wrong with that.

As long as you try to be merciful we'll all be ok.

 

[Real Name]

People who refuse to support genocide being called children and irrational is proof you don't get it.

People who wont vote will refuse to support genocide.

 

[maniak]

Classy response. Feels fairly in line with the posters that share the sentiment of: if you vote in the US election, you literally have blood on your hands - in a thread about the US election, but hey ho.

Thanks for the contribution.

As ever with this discussion, it's dominated by people not posing solutions or offering anything constructive, simply lamenting the situation and lashing out at others.

I was told in this thread I would be responsible for a woman dying while giving birth because because I wouldn't vote for joe biden. It's a stupid game, but why can only one side play it?

 

[maniak]

I find it more reprehensible that people are calling out other people for being morally bankrupt because their #1 issue isn't American voters #1 issue.

I personally would weigh in Middle Eastern events into my voting in UK elections, the vast majority of people do not because it's so far removed from their daily life and they have far far far bigger priorities to worry about.

There's nothing wrong with that.

Calling out people online is more reprehensible than voting for a candidate that supports genocide?

You're basically treating voters like children. People in this thread know very well that harris supports israel on their genocidal campaign. If they're ok with that or believe it's a price worth paying they're in their right to vote accordingly, but please stop pretending that's not what you're voting for.

 

[Raoul]

So far, neither Biden nor Harris been able to make this very simple point about why the Trump economy was perceived as better.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Very true. A vast majority of Americans outside the social media bubble are either agnostic or simply don’t care about things happening half way around the world, and are instead more interested the economics of day to day life.

To me it's a complete breakdown of what democracy should be.

People vote, and the intention of democracy, is to vote in their best interests.

You cannot possibly expect people to drop their own interests for the interests of people 10,000km away around the globe, it was never meant to be the function of democracy. As much as I stand against what Israel is doing, I cannot possibly expect Joe from Michigan to go, "I'll vote for Jill Stein despite being a massive Putin shill and having no coherent public policy, because although my life will be made worse and there's no realistic chance of her being in power, atleast I won't feel bad that I voted for someone who is giving Israel weapons."

It's wholly unrealistic and is just virtue signalling, to be honest.