2024 U.S. Elections | Trump v Harris

Dargonk said:
Trying to paint Tim as gay just seems dumb and pointless. It ignores the fact the man has a wife and kids, and has been portrayed as the typical white family man the whole time. Half the time it feels like they are just going for buzz words, ie we think gays are bad, so we will just tell our base that he is gay. Evidence, or even highlighting specific traits isn't required.

I'd also think that anyone who wouldn't vote for Kamala/Walz due to this, already isn't going to because she is a black women. So it isn't even gaining them any votes.
Click to expand...

This is what they are scared of. They don't want Walz to resonate with men. They don't like the idea he has a family, was a teacher, coaches football, hunts, fixes his car etc. It doesn't fit their message that only women, gays and "beta" men vote for Democrats. They believe they own this form of "manhood" so resort to calling him gay.

Scarlett Dracarys said:
Even if he is gay what's the issue? People need to stop concerning themselves about the sexuality of others.
Click to expand...

There shouldn't be one. Makes you wonder how they would have treated Pete Buttigieg had he been on the ticket.

We saw Trump's blatant homophobia on display when he called Anderson Cooper, Alison Cooper this week.
 
gaffs said:
There shouldn't be one. Makes you wonder how they would have treated Pete Buttigieg had he been on the ticket.

We saw Trump's blatant homophobia on display when he called Anderson Cooper, Alison Cooper this week.
Click to expand...
I don't think you have to wonder. The homophobia would have been off the charts. And as sad as it is, he probably couldn't win for that reason alone. Prejudice like that isn't even contained to the Republican party.
 
gaffs said:
British with US citizenship living in NJ and NC.

You are not going to Stephen Miller me, are you? "America is for Americans" !
Click to expand...
Haha no I was genuinely curious. I'm South American with a US citizenship living in NY. :cool:
gaffs said:
This is what they are scared of. They don't want Walz to resonate with men. They don't like the idea he has a family, was a teacher, coaches football, hunts, fixes his car etc. It doesn't fit their message that only women, gays and "beta" men vote for Democrats. They believe they own this form of "manhood" so resort to calling him gay.



There shouldn't be one. Makes you wonder how they would have treated Pete Buttigieg had he been on the ticket.

We saw Trump's blatant homophobia on display when he called Anderson Cooper, Alison Cooper this week.
Click to expand...
Politics is dirty business and I've never paid much attention to it but nothing will stop me from voting this year. I usually avoid it but I'll feel somewhat responsible if I don't do my part.
 
gaffs said:
Do you not see any irony behind a man, wafting his hand around with a face full of makeup, questioning other people's manhood? Jesse Watters has been questioning Tim Walz on this topic for months. Infact, he has a whole stick about what he defines as being a "manly man" yet he seems to fit non of his own criteria. He even takes personal offence when a man eats soup in public or use a straw...



No issue for deal leader though...
106029649-1563562882719preview.jpg


It is always projection with this Republicans.

I will give you another example. Mark Robinson. Openly anti Trans. There is a whole literny of transphobic comments...
https://southernequality.org/mark-robinsons-history-of-homophobic-comments/

Yet in his private life, he commented on porn message boards...
“I like watching ****** on girl porn! That’s f---ing hot! It takes the man out while leaving the man in!”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...-carolina-governor-race-cnn-report-rcna171860

I wont even start on how Trump projects his crimes, belifs and traits onto others.
Click to expand...

For me, this is the thing:
gaffs said:
There shouldn't be one. Makes you wonder how they would have treated Pete Buttigieg had he been on the ticket.

We saw Trump's blatant homophobia on display when he called Anderson Cooper, Alison Cooper this week.
Click to expand...
But in your earlier post, you're pointing out how it's projection and inconsistent and whatever - as if their comments would be OK if all Republicans were truly Manly Men in every way. To me, that's entirely besides the point and, if anything, perpetuates the stereotypes and validates their approach.

You could say that won't work with Trump supporters, but you aren't with them here - plus attitudes don't change if you go along with them.
 
Pintu said:
I am starting to think that the establishment in the democratic party actually wants Kamala to lose Michigan.




Click to expand...

It would be super weird to vote Republican because of Palestinian cause. Has Trump ever said he is not gonna send money or arms to Israel?
 
dumbo said:
As we're on the subject of what is and isn't appropriate to say, be it 'gaslighting' or 'disgusting':

I despise this mealy mouthed framing of the situation. It's borderline denialism.

The issue isn't that Joe Biden hasn't quite exerted the right amount of pressure. The issue is that Joe Biden (with Kamala Harris and the administration) has continued to allow the US to supply Israel with the funds and weaponry used to brutalise the Palestinians. He has routinely lied, has repeated dehumanising atrocity propoganda, has given blanket diplomatic support to Israel, has consistently reneged on 'red lines' and has continued to extended Israel's allowance everytime they have maxed it out, has smeared students protesting the attack on Gaza.

It is not just what Joe Biden hasn't done, it is what Joe Biden has done, that marks his absolute failure on the issue.

To use this vague, sugar-coated language provides an innacurate framing and seeks to absolve the Biden Harris administration of their complete moral and diplomatic failings on the issue.
Click to expand...

It's fair to criticize Biden for all that but Harris really doesn't have any influence over policy, even with a Biden in decline. Plus as mentioned, if she did what you wanted and came out with a tough on Israel stance as a candidate, she would have no chance of getting elected. I know that's frustrating and some people want everyone to condemn Harris as loudly as they are, but it's sadly the reality of US politics post-9/11. It's going to take some time to undo all the circumstances that have built up to create the current climate of the US stance on Israel.
 
Mike Smalling said:
I don't think you have to wonder. The homophobia would have been off the charts. And as sad as it is, he probably couldn't win for that reason alone. Prejudice like that isn't even contained to the Republican party.
Click to expand...

Pete would've outperformed Harris, just as he did in 2020. He's simply a superior communicator, which is a rare commodity in politics. The ability to connect with an audience can't be understated.
 
Raoul said:
Pete would've outperformed Harris, just as he did in 2020. He's simply a superior communicator, which is a rare commodity in politics. The ability to connect with an audience can't be understated.
Click to expand...
In a primary, sure. In the general, no way.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
I don't know anything about that and gaslighting would fit that scenario but some posters definitely come off as anyone that holds a slightly different opinion than a few posters is despicable, disgusting, etc. It doesn't matter if someone agrees with 95% of what they're saying.
Click to expand...
I agree. You're being attacked because 'unsatisfactory' is not strong enough a word. It's not what I would say either, but it makes discussion hard if you can only say something if you're sufficiently harsh in your wording.
 
That_Bloke said:
What an utter trainwreck of a post.
Click to expand...
Cloud7 said:
45k is bad but you should be thankful because it could have been 90k :lol:
Click to expand...
Real Name said:
We should be happy they killed 45k and not millions which they could have if they wanted.
Click to expand...
That_Bloke said:
Aside from his truly deplorable and despicable logic, the thing is that 45k is the number we undoubtedly know of.

We already are by legitimate accounts way over 100k deaths, the Lancet pointing at 187k in last June, with epidemics and starvation raging, added ot the daily, indiscriminate bombings which never stopped since 10/7. The Gaza strip's been effectively wiped off the map and the population sent back to the stone age, unable to survive without the most basic humanitarian help for the next five decades if they even get that far. And UNRWA was officially banned by Israel two days ago.

All of this with the full support and complicity of an administration Harris is an eminent member of, and who said absolutely nothing to really distance herself from the truly criminal endeavor the US is currently actively engaged in.

Yet he still has the gall to come up with this horrendous post, high on the smell of his own brainfarts and convinced that he just won the gotcha argument.

On the other hand, that's the same guy who tried to argue with me a few weeks after 10/7 that the Palestinians should've agreed to the Bantustans the Clinton administration and Israel tried to shove them down the throat promised them in 2000. Still better than an open-air prison and the periodic "mowing the lawn", was more or less his argument. He's at least consistent.

I'll stop here, it's not the right thread to elaborate any further.
Click to expand...
You guys having fun together? Onenil addressed this in the post right after. And anyway, it was a comparison between administrations, not an excuse of either.

Speaking of trainwrecks.
 
Mike Smalling said:
In a primary, sure. In the general, no way.
Click to expand...

I actually think Pete being openly gay would dull some of their attacks, because they couldn't dog whistle there, and Pete would proudly own it. I think the latest numbers are something like less than 1/4 oppose gay marriage now so the closet homophobia wouldn't win them any votes. Pete being a very good speaker and very adept at dealing with Fox News style is what makes it possible because if he had Kamala's wooden style, it wouldn't work.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
I actually think Pete being openly gay would dull some of their attacks, because they couldn't dog whistle there, and Pete would proudly own it. I think the latest numbers are something like less than 1/4 oppose gay marriage now so the closet homophobia wouldn't win them any votes. Pete being a very good speaker and very adept at dealing with Fox News style is what makes it possible because if he had Kamala's wooden style, it wouldn't work.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Compare and contrast Harris' Fox interview with way Pete barges in an slays them on Live TV. Both he and Gavin seem to have a unique ability to score points with the opposition.
 
Raoul said:
Agreed. Compare and contrast Harris' Fox interview with way Pete barges in an slays them on Live TV. Both he and Gavin seem to have a unique ability to score points with the opposition.
Click to expand...

That may be so, but there is a lot more to a candidate than doing well on Fox News, personally, i think Gavin would be a worse candidate than Harris, all of his rethorical skills wouldn't save him from the fact that he is basically a walking stereotype of a coastal, liberal elite.

Him being the governor of California also automatically makes him a punching bag to most of the US.

Pete im not sure how would perform as a candidate.
 
My only concern with Pete has been he needs a genuine connection with the Democratic base especially minorities. I have no issue with anything else I think he would eventually also make a very strong Presidential candidate. His profile has been sufficiently elevated from small town mayor, by being Transportation Secretary. All positive political moves. But he would really benefit imo, by some kind of working link, natural connection to major issues that he could point too as plugged in to the base.

Not that he would not get a large amount of support naturally. But his case would greatly be improved or strengthened courting minority voters if he had like Senator or Rep with a history of working with minority communities. Something more tangible to point to on his resume.
 
Morty_ said:
That may be so, but there is a lot more to a candidate than doing well on Fox News, personally, i think Gavin would be a worse candidate than Harris, all of his rethorical skills wouldn't save him from the fact that he is basically a walking stereotype of a coastal, liberal elite.

Him being the governor of California also automatically makes him a punching bag to most of the US.

Pete im not sure how would perform as a candidate.
Click to expand...

See, I think just like Pete being openly gay, Newsom negates some of those attacks because he is so articulate he can own the coastal liberal label and make it a positive, like he did in his debate with De Santis. It doesn't matter who the Dems run, Hilary, Biden, etc, Fox, Newsmax, etc will call them all far-left communists anyway so Newsom being able to deftly counter takes a lot of the wind out of their sails. Both Pete and Newsom are stronger candidates than Harris simply because they excel where she doesn't and that type of public speaking talent is crucial for a candidate in this social media information rich world of today.
 
Morty_ said:
That may be so, but there is a lot more to a candidate than doing well on Fox News, personally, i think Gavin would be a worse candidate than Harris, all of his rethorical skills wouldn't save him from the fact that he is basically a walking stereotype of a coastal, liberal elite.

Him being the governor of California also automatically makes him a punching bag to most of the US.

Pete im not sure how would perform as a candidate.
Click to expand...

For the purposes of this election, you may be heartened to know that Harris is also from the bay area, hence also a coastal liberal elite. Except in Gavin's case, he would have the benefit of having managed the fifth largest economy in the world for the past 5 years. The VP job, for all its hype of being a heartbeat away, is more ceremony than substance. The second bit about being a punching bag is pure nonsense, especially given that most people in the US live either on the coast or in very big cities.
 
Raoul said:
Yes, as in a Harris victory would be the first of her demographic background to win in a country that has never elected anyone other than males.
Click to expand...
Well, a person of color has been elected before, obviously, and I honestly think a gay person is a much tougher barrier to break than a woman, but that can't really be proven.

On top of that, I just don't think Buttigieg is as impressive as he sometimes gets credit for. He can do a combative interview on Fox News quite well, but other than that he comes across as an extremely bland politician.
 
VorZakone said:
Click to expand...

Things you saw coming from a mile away. Should have never been allowed to buy Twitter. Let's not forget how many people's jobs he eliminated with it too. Then there is the Starlink deployment in Ukraine as well. Should have never gotten that contract. Man was handed the reigns to mass influence the opinions of millions through manipulation and directly collecting sensitive data on its users around the world with it under the guise of free speech. And yet a portion of the population cheers.

I'm convinced that so much of what drives people like him and Trump, Putin, Netanyahu and other yahoos is that they simply want to be a big mention in the pages of human history - knowing that with the passage of time we also tend to white wash so much of the damage they did. Unfortunately in the era of social media they need to continue to do crazier and crazier to stay relevant while alive.
 
Last edited:
Raoul said:
For the purposes of this election, you may be heartened to know that Harris is also from the bay area, hence also a coastal liberal elite. Except in Gavin's case, he would have the benefit of having managed the fifth largest economy in the world for the past 5 years. The VP job, for all its hype of being a heartbeat away, is more ceremony than substance. The second bit about being a punching bag is pure nonsense, especially given that most people in the US live either on the coast or in very big cities.
Click to expand...

Being from there is not the same as being governor there, there is little point attacking Harris over California, since she doesn't set policy there, Gavin does though.

Him being the governor of the state isn't nearly the positive you think it is.
 
Mike Smalling said:
Well, a person of color has been elected before, obviously, and I honestly think a gay person is a much tougher barrier to break than a woman, but that can't really be proven.

On top of that, I just don't think Buttigieg is as impressive as he sometimes gets credit for. He can do a combative interview on Fox News quite well, but other than that he comes across as an extremely bland politician.
Click to expand...

Yes, and that person was a highly competent male, who in terms of political acumen was a generational talent. Also, given the 2016 election results, it would be fair to say that in a highly masculinized nation (as the US is), its easier to get an incompetent demagogue male with no political experience elected than it is a highly competent woman with substantial political experience. Therefore, bringing it back to Pete, it wouldn't be very hard for him to win an election because he checks all the boxes of previously successful winners and anyone who may take issue with him being gay or married to a man wouldn't be voting Dem anyway.
 
Morty_ said:
Being from there is not the same as being governor there, there is little point attacking Harris over California, since she doesn't set policy there, Gavin does though.

Him being the governor of the state isn't nearly the positive you think it is.
Click to expand...

For a nation that values business acumen, being a governor is loosely comparable to being a CEO of a US state, and is infinitely more valuable in terms of experience when auditioning for the only job that would be considered a promotion. If on top of this, one happens to run the biggest state in the country, and one that is bigger than a vast majority of nations, then that will only help.
 
Raoul said:
Yes, and that person was a highly competent male, who in political terms was a generational talent. Also, given the 2016 election results, it would be fair to say that in a highly masculinized nation (as the US is), its easier to get an incompetent demagogue male with no political experience elected than it is a highly competent woman with substantial political experience. Therefore, bringing it back to Pete, it wouldn't be very hard for him to win an election because he checks all the boxes of previously successful winners and anyone who may take issue with him being gay or married to a man wouldn't be voting Dem anyway.
Click to expand...
Don't agree with that at all. I definitely think there are independents and older Democrats that could be turned off by a gay man being the nominee. Basically I just think homophobia is a much more powerful factor than misogyny. As you say, the US is highly masculinized, but clearly one of the underlying traits of that specific type of masculinity is being straight.
 
Mike Smalling said:
Don't agree with that at all. I definitely think there are independents and older Democrats that could be turned off by a gay man being the nominee. Basically I just think homophobia is a much more powerful factor than misogyny. As you say, the US is highly masculinized, but clearly one of the underlying traits of that specific type of masculinity is being straight.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. The amount of ‘non-white’ people in the US is about a third, it will be a far lower proportion for people who identify as gay.
 
Beachryan said:
I think there's definitely a lot to that. The challenge is how you counter it, as a party that actually does want to use government to govern.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't know. I'm just witnessing the implosion of the international world order born out of WWII, the macabre triumph of "might is right" and the foundations of liberal democracy constantly and mercilessly being dug at.

The US isn't even that hard to fix. At present the perversions of the electoral and political system are preventing the popular will being implemented. Abortion, universal healthcare, climate-change policies, immigration policies - many of these issues have >70% support in the 'good' direction, but the political system as it exists is preventing that. Lobbying and money in politics are the two main culprits, and could both be fixed with a system that truly desired change.
Click to expand...

I'm seeing Trump and his disciples all over the world taking over, imposing themselves as more than credible alternatives, and quite a lot of people lapping it up. The latter are craving for strong leadership, in other words someone who can "whip them into shape". Desperate, aimless people tend to seek and refer to a supreme authority that would give them, at least a sense of direction and belonging. The current liberal democracies aren't able to provide them with this sense of security.

I listened to a bunch of Bernie lately, and he really was the last candidate I could see actually energising true change. We need another like him, or Obama.
Click to expand...

I love Bernie. Much more than an Obama, and in an alternate universe I saw him as someone who could truly spark the institutional changes in the US, and the world by extension. If I was American, I'd vote for him any single day of the week. However, he's the embodiment of the right candidate at the wrong time. Always has been. By European standards he'd be center left, but in the US it translates as a communist and therefore unacceptable. The US simply isn't ready for someone like him. Given his age now, he'll never be anything else than a massive what if, which will be discussed by historians in the future.

But as Bernie says - even the best-intentioned Democrats become beholden to that system. The challenge is having a movement so popular, so energised that it can overcome that.
Click to expand...

Yes, a thousand times. But you need a substantial part of the population able to take this step and it simply isn't ready for that at the moment.

I think alot about what that Cunk guy said - Trump could have been that. He actually found a base that wanted true change and took him to a position to do it. But he never had interest in change, just his personal agenda.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. What's truly differentiates Trump from most of the (successful) demagogues is that he hasn't any kind of vision for his country. He believes in nothing and will either prop up or spit on anything, as long as it serves his own agenda.
 
Last edited:
Kaush949 said:
I want to believe this. I keep seeing a lot of positive signs on X and reddit:
- Significant % of democrats waiting till election day vs. EV out of fear
- A material crossover from republicans who will vote blue (Haley voters)
- Heavy ground effort from democrats
- Independents will go 70-30 Harris
- Energized female voter base
- Trump's base has gained nothing since 2020

All this should point towards a Harris blowout.

But every A rated pollster is showing 50-50 or Trump +1. Aren't top pollsters usually accurate closer to the ED?

If the polls are infact true, then I am probably stuck in a democrat hopium echo chamber. Next week is going to be unbearable.
Click to expand...

prateik said:
NYTimes biased too?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/us/elections/polls-president.html
shows Trump leading.


actually asking. Dont live in the US.. not sure what is the best site to check for the latest polls.
Click to expand...
The polls are essentially meaningless at this point. As mentioned elsewhere, the polling data hasn't shifted, only the method in which they are sampling it. There have not been huge swings, or probably any swings at all, in voter preferences.

Oct. 31, 2024, 5:05 a.m. ET

The torrent of polls began arriving just a few weeks ago, one after the other, most showing a victory for Donald J. Trump.
They stood out amid the hundreds of others indicating a dead heat in the presidential election. But they had something in common: They were commissioned by right-leaning groups with a vested interest in promoting Republican strength.

These surveys have had marginal, if any, impact on polling averages, which either do not include the partisan polls or give them little weight. Yet some argue that the real purpose of partisan polls, along with other expectation-setting metrics such as political betting markets, is directed at a different goal entirely: building a narrative of unstoppable momentum for Mr. Trump.

The partisan polls appear focused on lifting Republican enthusiasm before the election and — perhaps more important — cementing the idea that the only way Mr. Trump can lose to Vice President Kamala Harris is if the election is rigged.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/31/us/politics/trump-harris-partisan-polls.html
 
Some of the arguments in this thread are shameless.

"Ok, the biden administration facilitated a genocide, but I believe under Trump the genocide would have been [pulls number out of ass] worse. Vote Kamala!"
 
Cheimoon said:
You guys having fun together? Onenil addressed this in the post right after. And anyway, it was a comparison between administrations, not an excuse of either.

Speaking of trainwrecks.
Click to expand...
I'll never apologize for criticizing and deriding the opinion of a poster like the one you're defending, especially knowing his previous posts on the topic.

His bogus argument consisting of "Yeah it's bad, but it could've been much worse" flies in the face of any decent human being and the so-called comparison between two administrations is a desperate attempt to absolve one of them when both went way beyond what's remotely acceptable.

If there ever was a meme award for "Are we actually the baddies?" then it currently would go to the US without contest.

You can plug your ears and sing "Lalala, can't hear you" but the fact is that the US is complicit in abetting a genocide. No amount of gaslighting will ever change that and I personally have the utmost despise for anyone trying to downplay it.

Now is not the time for sophistry and semantics. But you do you.
 
Last edited:
Cheimoon said:
For me, this is the thing:

But in your earlier post, you're pointing out how it's projection and inconsistent and whatever - as if their comments would be OK if all Republicans were truly Manly Men in every way. To me, that's entirely besides the point and, if anything, perpetuates the stereotypes and validates their approach.

You could say that won't work with Trump supporters, but you aren't with them here - plus attitudes don't change if you go along with them.
Click to expand...

Questioning anyone's "manhood" or labeling a married man like Walz as gay is ridiculous whoever it comes from. You could check all the stereotypical "manly" boxes and it would still be out of order to question anyone.

But do you not see the irony of these two men particular men, who don't fit any of the stereotypical imagery they are referring to, questioning others?
 
Scarlett Dracarys said:
Haha no I was genuinely curious. I'm South American with a US citizenship living in NY. :cool:

Politics is dirty business and I've never paid much attention to it but nothing will stop me from voting this year. I usually avoid it but I'll feel somewhat responsible if I don't do my part.
Click to expand...

Good on you. It will be my first time. I wish my vote meant more than it will in NJ.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
It's fair to criticize Biden for all that but Harris really doesn't have any influence over policy, even with a Biden in decline. Plus as mentioned, if she did what you wanted and came out with a tough on Israel stance as a candidate, she would have no chance of getting elected. I know that's frustrating and some people want everyone to condemn Harris as loudly as they are, but it's sadly the reality of US politics post-9/11. It's going to take some time to undo all the circumstances that have built up to create the current climate of the US stance on Israel.
Click to expand...

Very well put.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.