2024 Election - Trump vs. Harris, important downballot

[PhaelixWW]

good polls for harris but dont read to much into polls remember hillary was up by like 12 on average until the comey letter 5 days before the election probably swung it, im sure republicans have a whole slew of dirty tricks up their sleaves in october-early november

And most people are wise to those tricks now. "Fool me twice, shame on me" and all that.

I don't see a repeat of 2016 in the cards. Everyone knows the stakes now.

- - - Updated - - -

Time brings up a valid point in covering ex-Hillary campaign alumni: Why were media so quick to post every leak from the DNC hacks in 2016 and why are the same media just sitting on the 270 page opposition research doc on Jay Dee Vance instead of...posting that, too?

This may not be (and probably isn't) the complete answer, but part of it has to be simple self-preservation; Donald Trump is more likely to sue over it than Clinton was.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah this terminally online, reddit, creep motherfucker can't mention grandmothers. Postmenopausal female are a new revenue stream we can use to help raise kids.

To be fair, this would probably be covered in Indian culture with "aunties", in addition to grandmothers.

Doesn't make the reference less creepy, but may somewhat explain the terminology choice.


(Caveat: I'm no expert, so if I'm wrong, someone can correct me here.)

[Edge-]

This may not be (and probably isn't) the complete answer, but part of it has to be simple self-preservation; Donald Trump is more likely to sue over it than Clinton was.

Absolutely, and it's pathetic that such a threat is so effective despite the fact that the lawsuits would go nowhere and they'd likely have good grounds to ask for Donald to pay their own attorney's fees.

I wonder if maybe Democrats should do the same and start threatening and initiating expensive, baseless lawsuits against the media for reporting on leaks and shit? I'm absolutely not being serious here because this is regressive behavior, but at least highlight how easily cowed the media outlets are by a serial loser.

[Paranoid Android]

To be fair, this would probably be covered in Indian culture with "aunties", in addition to grandmothers.

Doesn't make the reference less creepy, but may somewhat explain the terminology choice.


(Caveat: I'm no expert, so if I'm wrong, someone can correct me here.)

What is wrong with you? Can you comprehend what I was talking about?

Postmenopausal female
Postmenopausal female
Postmenopausal female
Postmenopausal female
Postmenopausal female
Postmenopausal female

You think Postmenopausal female is a normal term or word when you can say Grandmother? My goodness I had this in bold so people would understand the point. Guess it didn't work.

Like the other poster why do you think explaining Indian, Southeast Asian or whatever culture of Grandma help raising kids was and is the point. Umm, yeah that happens much.

I did question and seem correct that Vance once again cannot grasp what is needed to raise a child with 2 working households. Even when these two likely had it better off than most new families.

So again, Don't give an EFF about Grandma coparenting. But I do give an EFF about this weird, online shithead having to use Postmenopausal female to describe what a grandmother is.

[Edge-]

https://archive.is/SgJ2a

Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sought a meeting last week with Democratic nominee Kamala Harris to discuss the possibility of serving in her administration, perhaps as a Cabinet secretary, if he throws his support behind her campaign and she wins, according to Kennedy campaign officials.

Harris and her advisers have not responded with an offer to meet or shown interest in the proposal, say people familiar with the conversations.

Rofl, Rob so fucking desperately wants to be important and be in government and Rob fuck off you fuckin goofball that starved a brainworm to death. Go post more campaign videos about how you do pushups and that means you're qualified to be POTUS.

Fucking hate how unserious and egotistical all these losers are.

[PhaelixWW]

What is wrong with you? Can you comprehend what I was talking about?

I sure did. I guess you didn't comprehend my response, though.

[Celista]

What is wrong with you? Can you comprehend what I was talking about?

Postmenopausal female
Postmenopausal female
Postmenopausal female
Postmenopausal female
Postmenopausal female
Postmenopausal female

You think Postmenopausal female is a normal term or word when you can say Grandmother? My goodness I had this in bold so people would understand the point. Guess it didn't work.

Like the other poster why do you think explaining Indian, Southeast Asian or whatever culture of Grandma help raising kids was and is the point. Umm, yeah that happens much.

I did question and seem correct that Vance once again cannot grasp what is needed to raise a child with 2 working households. Even when these two likely had it better off than most new families.

So again, Don't give an EFF about Grandma coparenting. But I do give an EFF about this weird, online shithead having to use Postmenopausal female to describe what a grandmother is.

It's worse than that, he's saying that the only function of women *at any age* is to take care of children. Don't have children? Your ovaries shriveled up? Take care of other people's children!

[draynay]

Doesn't make the reference less creepy, but may somewhat explain the terminology choice.

Do you need the choice of terminology explained? Because I can do that for you:

As we all know, females exist solely to produce children, but what about postmenopausal females? They can no longer produce children, what a problem to have such a worthless drain on society, but good news everyone - we have found a solution. So you can stop burning the old witches and put them to work raising the children of your fertile females. Up next we explore the wasted usefulness of fertile females that only have cats so don't tear down those pyres just yet.

[PhaelixWW]

Do you need the choice of terminology explained?

I sure don't. I get it. That's why I said it was still creepy.

Why does this seem hard for people to understand?

[tehdang]

This is an absolutely stupid take and ends up causing more people to join the other side.

You should recognize that this is a moral and not a practical argument. If telling potential voters "Fuck these people," costs a close election, it's still their fault morally for making an immoral decision. You can still lose an election and say the exact things he's saying:

Fuck these people. They don't matter. They can walk off a fucking cliff today and I wouldn't give 0 fucks.
They're fucking dumbasses.
boot-licking
mouth-breathing
ear-tampon-wearing people
traitorous pieces of shit.

To put it differently, the person that says "Fuck these people" is unworried about the existence of potential voters that say, "So you don't want my vote? Well, fuck you right back!"

[Kathranis]

A better message is "I want you to have clean water and affordable healthcare even though you're an asshole."

[Doomcookie]

You should recognize that this is a moral and not a practical argument. If telling potential voters "Fuck these people," costs a close election, it's still their fault morally for making an immoral decision. You can still lose an election and say the exact things he's saying:


To put it differently, the person that says "Fuck these people" is unworried about the existence of potential voters that say, "So you don't want my vote? Well, fuck you right back!"

Is that what you said about Trump's victims?

[Endus]

You should recognize that this is a moral and not a practical argument. If telling potential voters "Fuck these people," costs a close election, it's still their fault morally for making an immoral decision.

To put it differently, the person that says "Fuck these people" is unworried about the existence of potential voters that say, "So you don't want my vote? Well, fuck you right back!"

It's not that they're "unworried", it's that you can't provide any amount of evidence or reasoning that could ever reach anyone who's that radicalized. They're already divorced from reality. The most you can possibly do is protect yourself, for the same reasons you cut off contact with abusive parents. It isn't anyone's job to "save" these people, or "fix" them. If they want to radicalize themselves into hateful positions and push everyone away, they have only themselves to blame for every single step they voluntarily chose to take down that path. Yes, it's a moral position, because these people are avowing complete amorality, championing sadism for sadism's sake alone.

There isn't even a practical pathway to walk instead. Any such path necessarily involves compromise with the sadism and hate. Can't we agree on a certain amount of bigoted hatemongering against innocents, they ask, as if that's remotely acceptable. It's like asking for just a little child murdering, maybe some acceptable level of cannibalism.

No. That's not an acceptable position. There is no "practicality" there. A society framed by those people in any part is a dystopian hellscape, not a functional society. It would be better for the USA to fall apart completely than to work with such people in crafting a path forward.

[Rasulis]

I'm not refuting his wife's mom moving in.

I'm stressing the part he can't wrap that broken brain around about the difficulty of two parent, working household.

I do agree with that. Children are expensive. That $2,000 child tax credit does not even cover daycare. Especially for children between 1 and 3. Assuming one is able to even find an open slot at the local daycares.

Honestly, the US is really screwy when it comes to parental support.

[Poopymonster]

I do agree with that. Children are expensive. That $2,000 child tax credit does not even cover daycare. Especially for children between 1 and 3. Assuming one is able to even find an open slot at the local daycares.

Honestly, the US is really screwy when it comes to parental support.

That's a choice they intentionally made.

[draynay]

I sure don't. I get it. That's why I said it was still creepy.

Why does this seem hard for people to understand?

Probably because "creepy" is such an understatement, but some of us can be understated in our posts.

[Breccia]

I think one of the things people actually love about Donald Trump in politics is he’s not unwilling to speak off the cuff. He says what’s actually on his mind. He’s not always filtered. I think that’s a good thing and part of his appeal

-- Hot Sectional Action JD Vance, on FOX News *ding*

Yep, 8 years later and "he says what's on his mind" is still the excuse for "he's a racist with no love in his heart".

[gondrin]

-- Hot Sectional Action JD Vance, on FOX News *ding*

Yep, 8 years later and "he says what's on his mind" is still the excuse for "he's a racist with no love in his heart".

Honestly, and this is just me talking, I want someone to tell it like it is as it gives me a good sense to what they are thinking and what kind of person they are.

Trump being a blunt asshole is a fine thing as it also shows me he is an idiot, a racist, a fascist and pretty much a horrible, evil person that should never be in power.

Too many of those types will smile at you, tell you what you want to hear and unless you actually study who they are in a very deep way, it is usually too late by the time you realize they are a horrible person.

[Breccia]

Too many of those types will smile at you, tell you what you want to hear and unless you actually study who they are in a very deep way, it is usually too late by the time you realize they are a horrible person.

Interesting perspective. Appreciate it.

But it's still being used as an excuse for Trump being a racist asshole. "He speaks his mind" isn't an excuse any more than leaving your curtains drawn is an excuse why people saw you cheating on your wife. Yes, it's why people know, but it does not remove or explain the problem. It's just an attempt to handwave Trump being a racist asshole, in this context, and it's not an attempt I'm willing to entertain.

[Paranoid Android]

JD Vance claims that suburban women don't care about reproductive rights and are focused on "normal things".

https://x.com/kelsientaggart/status/...kCj9KQByA&s=19

Vid in link.

Keep talking JD. I don't want to put this all on women voters, but I really hope they understand that Republicans on a woman's body.

[fwc577]

To put it differently, the person that says "Fuck these people" is unworried about the existence of potential voters that say, "So you don't want my vote? Well, fuck you right back!"

There are no potential voters in that camp. If you voted for Trump in 2016, then in 2020, then again you want to vote for him in 2024, there is something so mentally unstable with an individual like that there is no amount of reasoning and debate that can be have to gain a voter.

TO PUT IT DIFFERENTLY

It's like when a political party gives up on an area and pulls out further advertisement / funding because they know they cannot win an election there, no matter how hard they try.