2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
Well, I have concerns on both sides based on issues for myself personally. If I'm being selfish, I have troubles deciding which one is more important over the next 4-8 years. The saving grace is that no matter who wins, it still takes congress to work together for most major changes, and that is something that seems to be difficult to achieve lately.
If the Senate is of a different party than the president the country is safe. Partisan agenda can't become law, and disasters are avoided.
That's why given the Senate is very probably going to be republican I think you would be better off with Harris as president (and I say this from the right, some people in this forum would say i am very far right).
If democrats get house senate and POTUS, they are going to nuke the filibuster and actual apocalyptic disaster is possible though
gandhi was very openly racist and publicly slept with his nieces
they differed quite a bit in policy - but if both stalin and gandhi were regular people working in your office the people would have unanimously considered stalin the better person
Stalin was a lot worse even if Gandhi was truly not a good person nor a positive influence for humanity at all.
Instead of Gandhi we would probably have got some violent nationalist and problems would have been bigger.
Instead of Stalin many far less psychopathic leaders were available and a lot fewer people especially inside the USSR would have suffered as much as they did.
The worst Gandhi caused us is to have to debunk the crap made up myth of non violent protesting. Stalin was worse than that, and his legacy is a lot worse than that.
Sure. If you're grading on such a curve that things the actual candidate say carry the same weight as random internet trolls it might be hard to decide. If you don't actually want to decide, that's a fine (but honestly not very convincing) tactic. If you actually want to decide, and not concern troll, the baavior and statements of Trump and Harris should be far more important. But that might require admitting both sides aren't the same
Let me be clear - I am not using social media to decide who to vote for. This was never about that.
This is about hypocrites who seem to think they will make their side look better while using the same tactics as the side they are bashing (name-calling, lying, etc).
I was merely pointing out that I haven't decided who to vote for yet because I think people on both sides are guilty of this.
I'll determine who I vote for based on issues that have the potential to have a direct effect on me. Nothing more.
Stalin was a lot worse even if Gandhi was truly not a good person nor a positive influence for humanity at all.
Instead of Gandhi we would probably have got some violent nationalist and problems would have been bigger.
Instead of Stalin many far less psychopathic leaders were available and a lot fewer people especially inside the USSR would have suffered as much as they did.
The worst Gandhi caused us is to have to debunk the crap made up myth
oh sorry i wasn't clear about my point
my point is that gandhi's flaws were very open and transparent, something that would come out in interviews and public appearances
he made zero efforts to hide his racism and openly flaunted that he forced his nieces to sleep in his bed each night naked with him - he somehow spun that into proof he was very pure - the old "i have all this child porn on my computer to prove to myself that despite making it easily accessible i don't want it" defense
whereas stalin kept everything close the vest, he was not openly anything
despite that stalin was immeasurably worse - if we had some scifi plotline where their brains were transplanted into modern americans and they both ran for office as opponents then the public would unanimously view the person with gandhis brain as the terrible person whereas stalin would come off as a regular guy
Let me be clear - I am not using social media to decide who to vote for. This was never about that.
This is about hypocrites who seem to think they will make their side look better while using the same tactics as the side they are bashing (name-calling, lying, etc).
I was merely pointing out that I haven't decided who to vote for yet because I think people on both sides are guilty of this.
I'll determine who I vote for based on issues that ha
At the risk of stating the blindly obvious, you are not voting for the people on Twitter, you are voting for one of the presidential candidates, so I am struggling with where you see this hypocrisy.
I'm not using it to decide who to vote for. My point is more that people are trying to sway someone to their side, or explain why they are voting the way they do, are making personal attacks based off of appearances. How would anyone expect that to make them look good? Especially the democrats who criticized Trump for mocking people, for making fun of appearances, and then they call him sheets or orange man. How does being hypocritical
Trump is rude, hateful and laughably incompetent. It's a tall order to maintain decorum in face of that.
And while I have no particular interest in mudslinging against Trump, it shouldn't be needed when you're as awful as he is, I do get suspicious when people request that Trump be treated politely or criticize those who do not do so.
This simply because a lot of those requests are from crypto-supporters of Trump who go #bothsidesbad every time Trump does something ridiculous, criminal or corrupt again, but will go full bore attack against the evils of the opposition if they find even the slightest thing to criticize. That crap was stale in 2016, and in 2024 it is just an insult to everyone's intelligence.
Let me be clear - I am not using social media to decide who to vote for. This was never about that.
This is about hypocrites who seem to think they will make their side look better while using the same tactics as the side they are bashing (name-calling, lying, etc).
I was merely pointing out that I haven't decided who to vote for yet because I think people on both sides are guilty of this.
I'll determine who I vote for based on issues that ha
i would just ignore the personal attacks
this is a very cultish forum, as moderate liberal myself, i'm often called an evil far right conservative simply because i will happily discuss flaws or things i don't like about certain democrats - something which they find impossible to do because they'd rather watch their spouse be gangraped and murdered and than say anything disparaging to an opponent of trump
many believe i'm secretly a trump supporter despite that i say 10x more terrible thing about him for every mild complaint about biden/kamala and now i'm being attacked for being evil for disclosing i'm voting for jill stein
Protectionist policies favor a few hundred thousand workers in dying industries. They also raise prices enormously. The only argument that makes sense for them is national security and retaliatory protectionism.
People blame everything on NAFTA because they have no idea how trade actually works.
It's more complicated than that. Comparative advantage shows us that if your soil grows better apples and mine grows better oranges we should specialize and trade.
It doesn't say lobbyists should write trade policy so that capital can seek out the worst labor conditions and lowest environmental standards. Though everyone in power pretends to believe this.
NAFTA resulted in the loss of like 500k jobs. Pretending it was a net positive in spite of that, those people who lost jobs still wouldn't like it.
Anyway, maybe they are selfish. Maybe they are wrong. Maybe Trump is FOS.
Alls I'm saying is that Trump at least pretends to want union and manufacturing jobs to stay in the US and I think some blue collar workers support him because of that.
gandhi would have 100% been canceled for his racism as well as been metoo'd for his undeage incest
stalin would have come across as a personable guy who was good at public speaking
Looks like some massively damaging story on Mark Robinson is about to drop on CNN that’s scaring republicans enough they want him to drop out
Looks like some massively damaging story on Mark Robinson is about
to drop on CNN that’s scaring republicans enough they want him to drop out
Mark Robinson, on a pornography website’s message board, referred to
himself as a “black NAZI!” and expressed support for reinstating slavery
The comments were made under the username
minisoldr, a moniker Robinson used frequently online.
Robinson listed his full name on his profile for Nude Africa
I like watching tranny on girl porn! That’s f*cking hot!
gandhi would have 100% been canceled for his racism as well as been metoo'd for his undeage incest
stalin would have come across as a personable guy who was good at public speaking
You really need to brush up your Stalin biographies. He was a violent criminal, and that is also how he made himself useful to the party initially. While he was known to be charming in person, that seems mostly reserved for people who could be useful too him.
And you didn't rise to power in the post-revolution Soviet Union by being a good public speaker, you rose to power by being being able to charm and threaten your way up the party ladder, while knowing when to sacrifice your friends or even setting in motion their murder yourself. Once you got to the top, it's not like many would dare criticize your public speaking skills.
Stalin was also leader of the Soviet Union while it conducted some of the bloodiest genocides versus specific ethnicities in human history, against Kazakhs, Tartars, Ukrainians, Cossacks, Fins, Estonians, Poles, Germans, Belorussians among others. So it seems rather bizarre to give Stalin as pass on racism.
I actually didnt mean it like that
It's more complicated than that. Comparative advantage shows us that if your soil grows better apples and mine grows better oranges we should specialize and trade.
It doesn't say lobbyists should write trade policy so that capital can seek out the worst labor conditions and lowest environmental standards. Though everyone in power pretends to believe this.
NAFTA resulted in the loss of like 500k jobs. Pretending it was a net positive in sp
You write 500k as if that was a significant number.
4-5 million jobs are destroyed every year in the USA.
And every other american household gains from access to Mexican and Canadian tariff free goods.
And it's not like the people who didn't have the "privilege" (lol) of having manufacturing jobs are necessarily going to end up destitute anyway
You really need to brush up your Stalin biographies. He was a violent criminal, and that is also how he made himself useful to the party initially. While he was known to be charming in person, that seems mostly reserved for people who could be useful too him.
And you didn't rose to power in the post-revolution Soviet Union by being a good public speaker, you rose to power by being being able to charm and threaten your way up the party ladd
i've read 2 different stalin biographies and frankly i find it offensive you would draw the conclusion i made those comments out of ignorance, especially since you immediately restated everything i said yourself - feels like pedantry for the sake of pedantry here
as you've acknowedged yourself, he was a very likable and charming person - most of the people he eliminated on his way to the top never saw it coming despite that he'd done it repeatedly to others - this is why he was never eliminated himself, because the others always thought they were on good terms and he was a very useful person to have as an ally - he wasn't just great at taking out rivals but he was perhaps the most effective administrator russia has ever seen - he was incredibly good at managing things at that talent was known to all and he was able to fool most people that they were not on his scope and those he couldn't fool he made sure to take out before they could take him out
that's my point, is that if his brain were transplanted into a candidate running for office in the usa right now, he'd play it cool and just lean into how charming he could be and wouldn't let anyone know about what he in store for his opponents and everyone who would oppose his ambitions
that's kind of my point and why i focus on track record and policy rather than personality because anyone can hide their flaws well like stalin did or be a genuinely good person who if we looked at their sexual proclivities or stance on certain social issues (such as with gandhi) then they could be great
so long as your weren't black (no black indians) or an underage relative of gandhis (less than a dozen or so), he most likely did things to which you benefitted from massively whereas stalin's abuses and terror impacted millions of his own his people
Looks like some massively damaging story on Mark Robinson is about to drop on CNN that’s scaring republicans enough they want him to drop out
At this point, what would even be hypothetically disqualifying for a Republican candidate? Racism (lol)? Sexually assaulting a minor? Roy Moore did that and he still ran.
Both sides do x so both sides same seems to be a more common logical fallacy than I would have expected.
It's not a logical fallacy, unless you take "the same" to mean "literally identical."
Everyone knows the Dems are for gay marriage and Rs oppose it.
But the parties, campaigns and most politicians income all comes from the same sources and those sources aren't dumb. They get a good ROI.
If you think it's great that 10-20k die for HC that is doubled in price, but it would be bad if 30k died, then the Dems are a great party, contrasted with Republicans who would kill more than your ideal number.
If you would prefer to pay half as much for HC and for as few as possible to die, there is no party that represents you on that issue.
It's not a logical fallacy, unless you take "the same" to mean "literally identical."
Everyone knows the Dems are for gay marriage and Rs oppose it.
But the parties, campaigns and most politicians income all comes from the same sources and those sources aren't dumb. They get a good ROI.
If you think it's great that 10-20k die for HC that is doubled in price, but it would be bad if 30k died, then the Dems are a great party, contrasted with Rep
Not all sectors of the economy donate to both parties equally tbh.
It's not a logical fallacy, unless you take "the same" to mean "literally identical."
Everyone knows the Dems are for gay marriage and Rs oppose it.
But the parties, campaigns and most politicians income all comes from the same sources and those sources aren't dumb. They get a good ROI.
If you think it's great that 10-20k die for HC that is doubled in price, but it would be bad if 30k died, then the Dems are a great party, contrasted with Rep
Ok, so Trump = Not Trump, got it.
ie trump should be executed for treason imo, but that doesn't mean i need to give biden nor kamala credit as good people
watch this, it's really good and basically the entire time talks about how biden will lie about anything if he thinks it'll make him look better
now he hasn't or won't commit treason i don't think, but despite knowing he was going senile, still insisted on running for office until he was finally forced out - which is a more benign form of ruining a country - what kind of terrible POS do you need to be to see yourself crumbling and yet insist on running for another term
kamala we just don't know anything about, perhaps she'll be fine, perhaps she's already planning mass extermination camps - i doubt it, but there's a non zero chance of that and it's also quite clear that she'll happily go in whichever way the wind is blowing while campaigning
obviously kamala is a million times better than trump - but trump is so terrible that she's still not a good candidate imo - hence why i'm going with a protest vote rather than rubber stamping someone chosen to be anointed by party insiders
You write 500k as if that was a significant number.
4-5 million jobs are destroyed every year in the USA.
And every other american household gains from access to Mexican and Canadian tariff free goods.
And it's not like the people who didn't have the "privilege" (lol) of having manufacturing jobs are necessarily going to end up destitute anyway
Yeah sure. I'm not trying to debate trade policy. I only know a little about it. I'm all for semi-free trade. I.e. with labor and env standards.
I'm just saying blue collars don't like stuff like NAFTA and Trump at least says he agrees with them, while Biden/Harris disagree and that seems like a good explanation for why they support him.
Yeah sure. I'm not trying to debate trade policy. I only know a little about it. I'm all for semi-free trade. I.e. with labor and env standards.
I'm just saying blue collars don't like stuff like NAFTA and Trump at least says he agrees with them, while Biden/Harris disagree and that seems like a good explanation for why they support him.
Existing blue collar jobs pay BETTER because of free trade.
The low margin jobs evaporate and what stays is upper the value chain more efficient and better paid, not sure if that part is obvious even to them.
You have lower manufacturing production on value than you would without free trade, fewer workers per unit of value produced, but those workers are much much better off than they would be individually if the country kept manufacturing more things.
Biden btw doesn't disagree which is why before he was clearly losing his mind, white working class over 50 men didn't dislike Biden as much as they disliked democrat candidates in the last 20+ years
