2024 U.S. Elections | Trump wins

[Iker Quesadillas]

And I see we're back to ignoring everything and anything Trump has ever done or said in an attempt to hope he handles the one issue we care about in a way inconsistent with his behavior of the past 30 years.

I don't think it makes any practical sense to bring up "Trump would be worse" when it comes to Israel/Gaza. Worse at what? The current war will be over by the time of the 2024 general elections. Donald Trump is not going to win the presidency and hop on a time machine to October 8th 2023 to rewrite history and wage a worse version of the war.

Maybe Biden would be better at what comes next. But you don't know what that even is.

And we're not allowed to call it dumb

It is not helpful to assume that anyone who doesn't want to vote for Joe Biden is dumb, no.

 

[Beachryan]

I see we're back at "everyone who disagrees with the Dem candidate is dumb."

I see we're back at "everyone who disagrees with the Dem candidate is dumb."

Listen, this can go back and forth forever - indeed it feels to me like it has just on this thread. It's clear you have extremely strong views on the Gazan situation, and are not American. That's obviously fine, and is the case for many posters on here. You're able to opine that voters should rationally choose to 'punish' Joe Biden because his actions vis-a-vis the Gazan war seem to you as the 'red line' and he's crossed it. The fact is, you can think that because you have very little skin in the game.

But for those who are actually American, who have to live in the states for the next four years the calculus is not that simple. In fact, reducing such a crucial election to any single issue is, imo, simply irresponsible given the context. The US is on the precipice of something genuinely horrifying, and it is sleep-walking over the edge. The Christo-facists have stacked the courts, agencies which are crucial to the running of the largest power on Earth are being staffed with zealots and the next President could well be basically incapable of complex thought. The repercussions of this are so bad that it should not even be a consideration, yet here we are.

I know it feels cathartic bitching about 'genocide Joe' and (somehow) believing that he could single-handedly stop the war today and that you're so riled up about Gaza (and only Gaza it seems) that you'd throw all the babies out with that bit of bathwater but any rational American voter has to factor in everything else.

So yes, I believe any American voter who looks at Gaza and says: "you know what, that's so bad, I'd prefer to help Donald J Trump become the next President" is, in fact, dumb. Because there is simply no logical path to follow whereby electing Trump is likely to make said voter's life better, their loved ones' lives better or Gazan lives better. Therefore, it is an irrational vote, and for me, dumb.

 

[maniak]

any American voter who looks at Gaza and says: "you know what, that's so bad, I'd prefer to help Donald J Trump become the next President" is, in fact, dumb.

Again, they don't actually want that, do they? They just can't vote for someone supporting genocide.

 

[Beachryan]

Again, they don't actually want that, do they? They just can't vote for someone supporting genocide.

And if you can work out that 1+1 = 2, that is exactly the same thing. Choosing to abstain in the election is going to help elect Donald Trump. That is irrefutable.

I've yet to see a single logical articulation which states: as an American who has to live here, I will give up womens' rights, the rule of law, LGBTQ+ support, peaceful transition of power and the thought of Trump making key decisions in return for showing my displeasure towards Biden's handling of Gaza.

If someone is willing to state that, it's a logical fair repudiation and that's fine. I disagree with it, but at least it's honest.

What is not honest is failing to acknowledge what not voting will actually result in. It's naive. Life is full of non-perfect choices, but we still have to make them.

 

[Abizzz]

Thing is you're beating your own strawman. No one believes trump would be better, just that supporting genocide is one step too much so voting for biden is not an option.

Look, for those that can vote there is an election coming up. You can vote for Dems, Reps, third or not. You cannot not vote and then free yourself of the consequences of the vote you have chosen not to be a part of. Having to make difficult choices is part of adult life, abstaining yourself from them does not free you from responsibility.

 

[maniak]

And if you can work out that 1+1 = 2, that is exactly the same thing. Choosing to abstain in the election is going to help elect Donald Trump. That is irrefutable.

I've yet to see a single logical articulation which states: as an American who has to live here, I will give up womens' rights, the rule of law, LGBTQ+ support, peaceful transition of power and the thought of Trump making key decisions in return for showing my displeasure towards Biden's handling of Gaza.

If someone is willing to state that, it's a logical fair repudiation and that's fine. I disagree with it, but at least it's honest.

What is not honest is failing to acknowledge what not voting will actually result in. It's naive.

No, trump becoming president because the US is full of scumbags who will vote for him is not the same as wanting him to be president because I can't bring myself to vote for a genocide supporter.

 

[SirAF]

And if you can work out that 1+1 = 2, that is exactly the same thing. Choosing to abstain in the election is going to help elect Donald Trump. That is irrefutable

What is not honest is failing to acknowledge what not voting will actually result in. It's naive. Life is full of non-perfect choices, but we still have to make them.

This 100%! And it is fecking infuriating. Just hold your nose and vote for the old geezer who is not going to overthrow the government - fecking hell people.

 

[maniak]

Look, for those that can vote there is an election coming up. You can vote for Dems, Reps, third or not. You cannot not vote and then free yourself of the consequences of the vote you have chosen not to be a part of. Having to make difficult choices is part of adult life, abstaining yourself from them does not free you from responsibility.

You don't get to pick and choose. If abstaining means supporting all of trump's evil stuff, then voting biden means supporting genocide.

 

[Beachryan]

No, trump becoming president because the US is full of scumbags who will vote for him is not the same as wanting him to be president because I can't bring myself to vote for a genocide supporter.

There are two outcomes in November: Biden or Trump.

Not voting contributes to one of those outcomes. You not wanting one of those two outcomes simply doesn't matter. Again, I don't get the impression you're actually an American voter, apologies if so, but you don't get to abdicate responsiblity because you don't like where it leads.

 

[Abizzz]

You don't get to pick and choose. If abstaining means supporting all of trump's evil stuff, then voting biden means supporting genocide.

I do get to pick and chose. And I chose to believe that abstaining means you are fine with whoever wins, be that Trump or Biden.

 

[Revan]

I see we're back at "everyone who disagrees with the Dem candidate is dumb."

Almost as dumb ‘as no vote for Biden is a vote for Trump’.

Deciding to not vote is a perfectly valid strategy when the choices are as terrible as they are now. Dems made this an easy decision when they decided to elect a demented candidate.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

What I am asking liberals is simple: stop losing elections all the fecking time and then crying about how voters are too dumb.

 

[Beachryan]

You don't get to pick and choose. If abstaining means supporting all of trump's evil stuff, then voting biden means supporting genocide.

Again, I think there are far more bridges to cross to get from 'electing Joe Biden' = 'supportin genocide' : to me that's like an argument a freshman at college in PoliSci 101 would make from their latop with a free Palestine flag on it. But fine.

All you're saying is that Joe Biden's actions towards Gaza are worse than the sum total of all the bad Trump things. (including whatever his policy would be). Just be honest, that's the equation.

 

[maniak]

There are two outcomes in November: Biden or Trump.

Not voting contributes to one of those outcomes. You not wanting one of those two outcomes simply doesn't matter. Again, I don't get the impression you're actually an American voter, apologies if so, but you don't get to abdicate responsiblity because you don't like where it leads.

I'm not america. I would vote blank if I were.

I'll repeat myself, I'll be fine with that "accusation" when all biden voters start telling me they're ok with their vote supporting genocide. Until they do that, it's just picking and choosing to make yourselves feel superior to those who can't, for conscience and moral reasons, bring themselves to vote for someone who has been supporting such suffering.

 

[maniak]

I do get to pick and chose. And I chose to believe that abstaining means you are fine with whoever wins, be that Trump or Biden.

Right, so you're fine with me calling you a genocide supporter? I mean, you're an adult who owns up to your choices, right?

 

[Revan]

Listen, this can go back and forth forever - indeed it feels to me like it has just on this thread. It's clear you have extremely strong views on the Gazan situation, and are not American. That's obviously fine, and is the case for many posters on here. You're able to opine that voters should rationally choose to 'punish' Joe Biden because his actions vis-a-vis the Gazan war seem to you as the 'red line' and he's crossed it. The fact is, you can think that because you have very little skin in the game.

But for those who are actually American, who have to live in the states for the next four years the calculus is not that simple. In fact, reducing such a crucial election to any single issue is, imo, simply irresponsible given the context. The US is on the precipice of something genuinely horrifying, and it is sleep-walking over the edge. The Christo-facists have stacked the courts, agencies which are crucial to the running of the largest power on Earth are being staffed with zealots and the next President could well be basically incapable of complex thought. The repercussions of this are so bad that it should not even be a consideration, yet here we are.

I know it feels cathartic bitching about 'genocide Joe' and (somehow) believing that he could single-handedly stop the war today and that you're so riled up about Gaza (and only Gaza it seems) that you'd throw all the babies out with that bit of bathwater but any rational American voter has to factor in everything else.

So yes, I believe any American voter who looks at Gaza and says: "you know what, that's so bad, I'd prefer to help Donald J Trump become the next President" is, in fact, dumb. Because there is simply no logical path to follow whereby electing Trump is likely to make said voter's life better, their loved ones' lives better or Gazan lives better. Therefore, it is an irrational vote, and for me, dumb.

The entire strategy of Democrats for the last 3 presidential elections has been ‘Trump is so bad and dangerous, vote our candidate instead’. It backfired in 2016, it likely would have backfired if it wasn’t for covid in 2020, and it will probably backfire in November.

I think if instead they choose a strategy which is more similar to ‘our candidate is great’, it might have been better.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

So yes, I believe any American voter who looks at Gaza and says: "you know what, that's so bad, I'd prefer to help Donald J Trump become the next President" is, in fact, dumb. Because there is simply no logical path to follow whereby electing Trump is likely to make said voter's life better, their loved ones' lives better or Gazan lives better. Therefore, it is an irrational vote, and for me, dumb.

The fundamental contradiction is that people like you also think Donald Trump voters are dumb.

You think that if liberals do not set aside their grievances about Biden and vote for him in order to further liberal causes, they are dumb.

And at the same time you think that if conservatives set aside their grievances about Trump and vote for him in order to further conservative causes, they are dumb.

It all boils down to thinking that the only opinion that isn't dumb is yours. That's it. There is nothing else to it than that.

 

[Beachryan]

I'm not america. I would vote blank if I were.

I'll repeat myself, I'll be fine with that "accusation" when all biden voters start telling me they're ok with their vote supporting genocide. Until they do that, it's just picking and choosing to make yourselves feel superior to those who can't, for conscience and moral reasons, bring themselves to vote for someone who has been supporting such suffering.

I'll say it as clearly as I can:

The sum total of Joe Biden's actions as president in terms of utility to how I view the world is more positive than the sum total of all actions a potential Donald Trump presidency will be. That includes citizens' rights, the rule of law, democracy, the environment, religious freedoms, the economy and everything else a Presidency brings.

I'm an economist, all you're doing is saying for you the equation has an infinite in it. Hence, one side will always be bigger than the other, no matter what is on the other side. Trump could literally give Netanyahu a tactical nuke to use in Gaza and you'd still maintain your argument, because that's how extreme your position is. Which is fine, just be honest about it.

 

[maniak]

Again, I think there are far more bridges to cross to get from 'electing Joe Biden' = 'supportin genocide' : to me that's like an argument a freshman at college in PoliSci 101 would make from their latop with a free Palestine flag on it. But fine.

All you're saying is that Joe Biden's actions towards Gaza are worse than the sum total of all the bad Trump things. (including whatever his policy would be). Just be honest, that's the equation.

I have been accused in this very thread of being responsible for women dying during a pregnancy because they can't get an aborting, for children being in cages and muslims being deported, so if that's the game being played, then it's more than fair to call biden voters genocide supporters.

I think both are dumb, but if as a non-voter I can be accused of being ok with whatever trump does, the only thing I ask in return is that you assume you're ok with your vote supporting genocide.

 

[Morty_]

Since Covid was brought up, it feels like americans have collectively amnesia, "thing were so much better under Trump" , did the last year of his administration just not happen or something?

Yes, he didn't cause Covid, but his response to it was a joke, and largely why it got so bad in the first place.

Why isn't anyone remembering this?

It should also be communicated that Trump inherited a decent economy from Obama, but nobody is doing that.

 

[Beachryan]

The entire strategy of Democrats for the last 3 presidential elections has been ‘Trump is so bad and dangerous, vote our candidate instead’. It backfired in 2016, it likely would have backfired if it wasn’t for covid in 2020, and it will probably backfire in November.

I think if instead they choose a strategy which is more similar to ‘our candidate is great’, it might have been better.

I don't think you're wrong, I wish literally anyone was the democractic candidate - even f*cking Kamala Harris. But that is entirely irrelevant from the argument these two posters are currently making.

Also, the dems have done really well in the past 6 years in most elections, so someone is getting it right.

 

[Abizzz]

Right, so you're fine with me calling you a genocide supporter? I mean, you're an adult who owns up to your choices, right?

What's the point of this discussion? I do not agree with the premise to begin with... so what answer do you expect? Honestly regret even being arsed to engage in this infantile argument.

 

[SirAF]

What's the point of this discussion? I do not agree with the premise to begin with... so what answer do you expect? Honestly regret even being arsed to engage in this infantile argument.

Just ignore him and be happy he doesn't get to waste a vote.

 

[maniak]

I'll say it as clearly as I can:

The sum total of Joe Biden's actions as president in terms of utility to how I view the world is more positive than the sum total of all actions a potential Donald Trump presidency will be. That includes citizens' rights, the rule of law, democracy, the environment, religious freedoms, the economy and everything else a Presidency brings.

I'm an economist, all you're doing is saying for you the equation has an infinite in it. Hence, one side will always be bigger than the other, no matter what is on the other side. Trump could literally give Netanyahu a tactical nuke to use in Gaza and you'd still maintain your argument, because that's how extreme your position is. Which is fine, just be honest about it.

That's only true if you consider each action has having the same value. Let's go for a crazy dictator scenario, he builds top of the art hospitals for free for his population and at the same time engages in a genocidal war with a neighboring country. Is this 1 bad thing and 1 good thing for you? So the sum would be zero?

You're treating genocide just like any other political position, for me that's absolutely crazy.

 

[Beachryan]

I have been accused in this very thread of being responsible for women dying during a pregnancy because they can't get an aborting, for children being in cages and muslims being deported, so if that's the game being played, then it's more than fair to call biden voters genocide supporters.

I think both are dumb, but if as a non-voter I can be accused of being ok with whatever trump does, the only thing I ask in return is that you assume you're ok with your vote supporting genocide.

Listen, this is just me, a relatively well-informed person that actually did study the region while at college. The situation with Israel is extremely complex, filled with bad actors on both sides and and to this day no-one has a clear articulation of a solution. Do I believe there should be a ceasefire, in which time Netanyahu is removed democratically by his own people and various world powers can host talks on how to develop a workable two-state solution? Yes. That's what I would like to see. Do I believe that the US could stop Netanyahu this afternoon? No, I do not. I can justify that opinion, and you can disagree with it. That's a fair debate. But it would be a debate. Do I believe that Netanyahu is attempting a genocide? Yes. Do I extrapolate that out to Sinak, Macron, Sisi and Biden all getting 'geoncide' monikers? No I think that's infantile.

Flipside: banning abortions fullstop will kill innocent women. There is no debate. There are not two sides. It has happened, and it will continue to happen.

I do not think the two thinsg are the same, and as above can articulate why.

 

[maniak]

What's the point of this discussion? I do not agree with the premise to begin with... so what answer do you expect? Honestly regret even being arsed to engage in this infantile argument.

The point is for me to show you you're asking me to own up to my decision of not voting as somehow being ok with whatever trump does without being able to do the same yourself.

 

[Revan]

I don't think you're wrong, I wish literally anyone was the democractic candidate - even f*cking Kamala Harris. But that is entirely irrelevant from the argument these two posters are currently making.

Also, the dems have done really well in the past 6 years in most elections, so someone is getting it right.

I don’t think it is though. Lots of Dems are saying that everyone who doesn’t vote our candidate is dumb, or racist, or evil, without saying anything about their candidate who is literally demented. So you might forgive people for not being perfectly happy to vote a demented candidate. And of course, you might forgive Muslims who are unwilling to vote Biden who is partaking in a genocide against Palestinians.

In any case, Trump is an extremely weak candidate who most independents heavily dislike. If Dems lose this election cause of choosing a guy who is unable to say anything without reading from cards, it is completely their fault, they are the dumb ones.

Have the Dems done that well in these elections? They lost the House last election, they essentially been tied 50-50 in the senate. There are more TVs that are left-wing which portrayed the House elections as a win, but actually GOP won the house, it wasn’t a win for Dems. I am expecting to lose by 3-4 fouls from City today, if we lose by 1-2 goals instead, City would have still won. This is pretty much what happened in the last House election.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

It feels like we've debated this stuff a million times already. I'll just restate my position:

I believe that most people do not vote simply on 'who will make my life better.' They also need the candidate to meet some minimum standard.

I am not telling anyone that they should not vote for Biden, or that they are bad if they vote for Biden. I am simply explaining that when a politician fails to meet that minimum standard, some will choose not to vote for them.

To quote the famous HBO show The Wire: "You want it to be one way. But it's another way."

 

[VorZakone]

I don’t think it is though. Lots of Dems are saying that everyone who doesn’t vote our candidate is dumb, or racist, or evil, without saying anything about their candidate who is literally demented. So you might forgive people for not being perfectly happy to vote a demented candidate. And of course, you might forgive Muslims who are unwilling to vote Biden who is partaking in a genocide against Palestinians.

In any case, Trump is an extremely weak candidate who most independents heavily dislike. If Dems lose this election cause of choosing a guy who is unable to say anything without reading from cards, it is completely their fault, they are the dumb ones.

Isn't it the case though that other Dem candidates poll worse against Trump? In other words, Biden is the only Dem candidate that can beat Trump?

 

[maniak]

Listen, this is just me, a relatively well-informed person that actually did study the region while at college. The situation with Israel is extremely complex, filled with bad actors on both sides and and to this day no-one has a clear articulation of a solution. Do I believe there should be a ceasefire, in which time Netanyahu is removed democratically by his own people and various world powers can host talks on how to develop a workable two-state solution? Yes. That's what I would like to see. Do I believe that the US could stop Netanyahu this afternoon? No, I do not. I can justify that opinion, and you can disagree with it. That's a fair debate. But it would be a debate. Do I believe that Netanyahu is attempting a genocide? Yes. Do I extrapolate that out to Sinak, Macron, Sisi and Biden all getting 'geoncide' monikers? No I think that's infantile.

Flipside: banning abortions fullstop will kill innocent women. There is no debate. There are not two sides. It has happened, and it will continue to happen.

I do not think the two thinsg are the same, and as above can articulate why.

I understand all you're saying, but I just think we're looking at biden's actions differently. You seem to see it as biden being in a difficult situation where he doesn't have the power to stop the genocide even if he wanted. If he was trying to stop it but for some reason (bad actors on both sides) things were still going to shit, I would probably be able to overlook it and vote for him just to stop trump. But I don't see it that way, I see it as him being ok with what's happening, so for moral reasons I couldn't vote for that. Maybe I'm wrong and biden is having sleepless night about his decisions, but there's nothing in his words or actions that lead me to think that.

So this specific vote for biden would be for me more of a moral choice than a political one. Some people don't differentiate and that's ok, I just don't see politics as being separate from morality and I require a minimum of moral standards before giving someone my vote. In this election, neither candidate meets my personal minimum standard.

My main argument in this whole discussion, however, is that people who refuse to vote for biden are being accused of being responsible for things like women dying or immigrants being treated like shit (let's ignore for a minute those things are also actually happening under biden's leadership) by not voting for biden. Those same people seem reluctant to, following the same logic, admitting they would be ok with their vote supporting genocide, even if they consider biden's other good actions trump that evil action.

It's the double standards more than anything that annoy me a bit.

 

[Revan]

Isn't it the case though that other Dem candidates poll worse against Trump? In other words, Biden is the only Dem candidate that can beat Trump?

The other Dem candidates are practically unknowns, except probably Newsom. If they had a platform since last year to compete with each other, they would have by now popularity.

Both Trump and Biden lose in polls against generic Democrat/Republican candidate.

 

[Morty_]

Isn't it the case though that other Dem candidates poll worse against Trump? In other words, Biden is the only Dem candidate that can beat Trump?

Biden polls better than Harris and Newsom, but the only one who can beat Trump? Hardly.

Whitmer, for one, would be a stronger candidate, shores up Michigan, sexism could be an issue though.

Biden is not a strong candidate, but not the worst either.

 

[Morty_]

The other Dem candidates are practically unknowns, except probably Newsom. If they had a platform since last year to compete with each other, they would have by now popularity.

Both Trump and Biden lose in polls against generic Democrat/Republican candidate.

Generic candidate always poll well, but when you get actual names, it is more complicated though.

 

[Jev]

Generic candidate always poll well, but when you get actual names, it is more complicated though.

Still a viable point that name recognition is a major factor in those kinds of polls, and that Newsom/Whitmer likely would have polled much better against Trump if they had done a year of presidential campaigning.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

Isn't it the case though that other Dem candidates poll worse against Trump? In other words, Biden is the only Dem candidate that can beat Trump?

Name recognition is a thing though. If you look at the below opponents Trump's support doesn't poll significantly higher against any. Seems to me it's just that a larger portion don't know who they are and are unable to make an informed choice. It's only a guess but I reckon those numbers are likely subject to much more change as a candidate and their positions become more widely known. It's obviously a bit of a gamble though.

 

[Revan]

Generic candidate always poll well, but when you get actual names, it is more complicated though.

Because no one knows those names. Give those names a year to campaign and you’ll find someone better than a guy who is senile.

 

[Jev]

Name recognition is a thing though. If you look at the below opponents Trump's support doesn't poll significantly higher against any. Seems to me it's just that a larger portion don't know who they are and are unable to make an informed choice. It's only a guess but I reckon those numbers are likely subject to much more change as a candidate and their positions become more widely known. It's obviously a bit of a gamble though.

We’re nearing the terrain where it’s a bigger gamble to stick with Biden.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

Because no one knows those names. Give those names a year to campaign and you’ll find someone better than a guy who is senile.

It's a high bar.

 

[Morty_]

Because no one knows those names. Give those names a year to campaign and you’ll find someone better than a guy who is senile.

Some of them would be better than Biden, agreed, but it's not without risk, Harris could win the primaries, she has a worse chance, just an example.

Newsom i think is a better choice, but California politicians doesn't sell well nationally.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

We’re nearing the terrain where it’s a bigger gamble to stick with Biden.

It's a bit moot because unless he has a severe health episode it's gonna be Biden but yeah, it's not looking overly promising is it?