2024 U.S. Elections | Trump v Harris
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
He knew exactly what he was saying. There are many ways to say she likes war without turning it into a thinly veiled dog whistle for one of his nutjob followers to take a shot at her. Exact same coded language that resulted in Jan 6th.
He is doing both. He does this routinely
He literally tried to overthrow the government and you are making excuses for him?
Was on the fence really this time around after the disastrous debate but from two very bad candidates I choose Trump as the least stinking turd out of the two. Dems can't get an original candidate in almost two decades since Obama - it's either the wife of a former president, a VP of a former president, and this time it's a VP of a VP of a former president and a woman Obama wannabe. Next time around they will have Mrs. Obama as their candidate, mark my words. They've become a meme party.
I feel like the democratic party only targets the very poor and minorities as their base, while not doing anything for the other demographics. I think that the Trump administration will bring the wars to an end, while under Kamala the tensions will only escalate. I don't like how the dems pushed Biden out so late in the race and put a candidate who no one voted for, they really should've done it much sooner and organized fair primaries. I don't like the media bias, I don't like the idea of trying to prosecute your political opponents, I don't like censorship. There are many things I don't like about the republican party either but like I mentioned, since I have to choose out of two bad options, I chose the lesser of two evils.
Illinois, so my vote is a mere formality.
What good will that do now? No way she can be removed from the ballots. Even if stepped back officially it would have little to no impact.
So saying she should fire at her and keep their rifles trained at her face is what? Code for love?
Its well known that Trump communicates in a code that insulates him from legal or moral exposure should something go wrong. Its always his followers and victims that wind up bearing the brunt of the consequences.
I don't think there was much in code. Man's not really known for clever metaphors.
He asked them to fight like hell, go to the Capitol and even told them he'd join them.
That he did, but he didn't''t tell them to violently breach the building and look for Trump opponents to kill and or to hang Mike Pence. His words were vague enough to create plausible deniability in case it all went wrong. This latest case with Cheney is no different.
That's true.
But even if his words were exact, there will be enough people twisting themselves into pretzels arguing that he should be taken figuratively and not literally. By "assasinate the current president", he only meant " block his commie agenda".
That’s true and I hate it.
This is an actual quote from the WSJ editorial board endorsement of Trump.
Just check what they have done for the poor and middle class, yes they could do much more but for The House and Congress and now the SC. They still help the rich, just not as much or as openly.
You must be joking right? Even if he does it will be to the determent of Ukrainian and Palestinians and anyone not Jewish or Saudi in the Middle East. Ultimately that will just cause more long term problems and tensions around the world.
To add, it's not shock North Korea are mobilizing troops now so close to the election. The Dems wouldn't accept any North Korea involvement in Ukraine. Trump would probably encourage it as he's up Putin and Kim's arses. Or he's owned by them. One or the other. Maybe both.
That's a fair point.
That goes both ways, they really don't ever hold Trump to the same standards. Ever.
They are not. Trump is being prosecuted for crimes he committed. They just took way too long to do it. Obviously Trump wouldn't agree to prosecute himself would he?
Are you for real?
Who is the party banning flags, books in schools, getting only their version of history taught in schools, parades and political matches or all those companies they tried to cancel like Budweiser and Target for ads or products that had a fecking rainbow on them...
We won't even get in to the LGTBQ bans and censorship that community still endure daily or the fact Trump again is campaigning on stripping rights from that community.
I honestly struggle so greatly with this level of hypocrisy and tunnel vision from Republicans. Dems aren't trying to censor anything. This whole free speech bullshit is just a giant charade too as Twitter has shown where the Republicans and far right want to be able to say anything they want then complain when the other side says something they don't like or when one of their own gets arrested or banned or cancelled.
All that boils down to two things.they want their cake and eat it and a fundamental misunderstanding of what free speech actually is or isn't. It's never been absolute and was never meant to be. Just because you can say something doesnt mean you don't have to face the consequences for doing so.
I always laugh when Elon bangs on and on about free speech yet conveniently ignores the rules on his own site of which you can get banned for breaching.
In your opinion.
Thank feck for that. Sadly too many others who have made the same choice as you in important states will count.
Last edited:
Romney is a bit of a flip-flopper to be fair on abortion and says what he thinks he should say to get elected on the topic - https://theweek.com/articles/471609/did-mitt-romney-flip-stance-abortion--again
It’s true that Trump’s threats are usually vague enough so as to not be a smoking gun (the Raffensberger call being the prime example). I do, however, struggle to believe it’s a planned strategy, as that would imply he was more in control of what comes out of his mouth than I believe he is. I think it’s really just his stupidity bailing him out, same as many people struggle to see him as dangerous when he’s also such a bumbling idiot.
Tbh this is the one where traditional GOP and Democrats are more aligned, but at the same time, you can't say with any certainty that Trump's policies are necessarily bad for Americans (isolationist foreign policy unless it comes to core political allies like Israel).
Exactly how Trump is too. He couldn't give a feck either way. It's all for votes.
You're probably right but I think marshalling all benefits in favor of legalized abortion is a good thing overall. Which reminds of this:
“Legalized abortion is estimated to have reduced violent crime by 47% and property crime by 33% over this period, and thus can explain most of the observed crime decline,” Donohue and Levitt write.
Trying to make sense of this through polls, rumors about internal polls, early voting data, etc. etc. is making my head spin. Can't wait for Tuesday.
Agreed. The main difference is that Trump is an enabler of dangerous ideas and people and Romney (or his ilk) aren't or are a lot less so.
Two questions:
- Do you not consider Fox, OAN, Newsmax, a dominance of radio and local television part of the mainstream media?
- If a politician commits a crime, should we not prosecute them if the attorney general is a different political party?
The easiest way to process it is both sides are using selective information to assuage the anxieties of their own side that Tuesday will go well for them. Because the polls are so close and within the margin of error, its fair to say no one knows what will happen in a few days.
Early voting data is noise - Trump went from calling them a fraud to calling them a fraud and asking his supporters to ballot stuff on early voting, RCP got skewed by a flood of right-leaning polls which meant Trump went up to 67% on poly (which I sold). Realistically, if you remove the noise, the polls have been within margin of error this entire time.
It will all depend on turnout of certain demographics but neither Kamala nor Trump is getting swept across the swing states - I see both of them winning at least 2 each.
Sorry I just don’t have the energy to respond to all the stuff in here, fair play to @langster for his reply which does a good job, suffice to say I find your position absolutely insane.
Can I ask you, genuinely curious, how you reconcile with the fact that Trump tried to illegally overturn the last election and has pledged to use his presidential powers to go after people who wronged or disagree with him?
Thank you!
Definitely. He's a traditional Republican politician. What Ted Cruz wishes he could be but isn't because he's a much slimier prick than Romney. The American equivalent of Kier Starmer & Tony Blair even David Cameron.
Au contraire, Biden's policies were a disaster for Ukraine. We've given huge amounts of weapons and support and money to the Ukrainians. They've taken heavy, heavy casualties. They're reportedly not very able to replenish their losses now.
Look at the Eastern front—it’s cracking. Russia’s likely got the upper hand now, and honestly, there’s not much the U.S. can do to flip the script without actually putting our own troops (or NATO's) on the ground. And we’re so not going there.
And here’s the kicker: the pro-proxy war crowd never mentions the inconvenient little truth that, even if we did get the upper hand in a conventional fight, Putin could just use tactical nukes.
And then what would we do? We're not gonna, you know, have a full blown nuclear exchange with the Russians over Ukraine. If you don't get that, you're too naive.
Remember when Obama was leaving office?* He said he stayed out of Ukraine because, the Russians have “escalation dominance” in the region. Meaning: they care more, and they’ve always got that nuclear card up their sleeve. So, even if we pulled off a win conventionally, they can just raise the stakes. Then what? We’re not exactly about to trade nukes with Russia over Ukraine.
Anyways, Trump has stated that he intends to end the war and opposes U.S. participation. Vance, too, has been way more articulate about why this proxy war isn’t in the U.S.’s best interest. And, honestly, I’m with him on a lot of it.
So, you know, sort of 50/50, if Trump were to take office, the war might end on unfavorable terms for Ukraine. But even a Harris administration I think does have, fatigue on this matter.
____
* https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/
"Obama’s theory here is simple: Ukraine is a core Russian interest but not an American one, so Russia will always be able to maintain escalatory dominance there.
“The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-nato country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do,” Obama said.
I asked Obama whether his position on Ukraine was realistic or fatalistic.
“It’s realistic,” he said. “But this is an example of where we have to be very clear about what our core interests are and what we are willing to go to war for."
You're overreaching. He is ironically asking if she would still be such a fanatical war hawk if she suddenly found herself facing the combat situation he describes.
Liz is too insignificant to Trump for him to send coded messages to his followers—whatever that means.
A good example of selective, quasi-intellectual Russian propaganda that has seeped into the US right wing ecosystem. And no, there's no way a Trump administration would result in a favorable outcome to Ukraine, because they want Russian troops off their soil and Trump would simply advocate to give Putin any Ukrainian land he currently holds. A farcically unserious proposal.
Are you voting for Trump or Harris ?
Is she facing AK 74's?;
Neither! feck 'em both
Trump's remarks about Liz Cheney echo the standard liberal rhetoric from years ago, before neocons took over the Dems foreign policy circles. Democrats used to label figures like Bush, Cheney, Bill Kristol, and David Frum as "chickenhawks" for advocating wars they wouldn't fight themselves.
Trump was making the valid and important point that, like many in Washington D.C., Liz Cheney is a fervent advocate for military interventions because neither she nor her father have personally experienced the horrors of war.
You're not voting ? Your posts seem consistently complimentary to Trump's positions, so why not vote for him ?
That's not what I wrote.
Ah, you must not be familiar with that posters fine work then.