2024 US Presidential Election Thread

[UKMikey]

I suspect he's setting us up for a white-collar cultural elites argument which posits that the valencia-coloured villain is a champion of the proletariat.

I think that’s why Trump strikes such a chord amongst Blue Collar workers. Context and content aside, as unpresidential as DT is, his banter is very similar to how blue collar workers interact.

LOL, 🎵 nailed it 🎶.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I think that people most often reflect who they surround themselves with. For adults that work 40 hours a week, a very large portion of their life is spent with colleagues. I think there’s a certain amount of assimilation that naturally happens within the work place.

When comparing white collar to blue collar work, I think the biggest difference is within the culture and interpersonal interactions. I think that’s why Trump strikes such a chord amongst Blue Collar workers. Context and content aside, as unpresidential as DT is, his banter is very similar to how blue collar workers interact. And I also think this is the same reason that so many white collar workers find him off-putting.

When I attend the wife’s work events, I have to consciously throttle back my personality and banter by at least 50% - and remind myself that they don’t interact at work, or with each other like I do.

I don't think you're wrong, but this is all pretty superficial - it's not world view shaping. It also pre-dates Trump by...millenia? When I go to job sites and talk to subcontractors I experience the reverse of what you're saying (and I sense them doing exactly what you say - throttling back, particularly if there is a woman around), but even blue collar workers in the bay area are frequently more left than right (unions are a big part of that). A professional environment has different needs than a job site or a mechanic shop, it's not that surprising.

Do you really believe that Trump's banter is what drives the opposition to him? Because I think that's an incredible thing to say. I find Trump genuinely funny...because he's often so ridiculous. I can tell you that his form of communication is not my problem with him. It's his quite explicit rejection of our foundational ideas, namely democracy that I take exception to. Trump is a very effective con man. He's conned middle American into thinking he's one of them. He's not. He's exploiting their anger for his own benefit.

 

[Yard_Sale]

I don't think you're wrong, but this is all pretty superficial - it's not world view shaping. It also pre-dates Trump by...millenia? When I go to job sites and talk to subcontractors I experience the reverse of what you're saying (and I sense them doing exactly what you say - throttling back, particularly if there is a woman around), but even blue collar workers in the bay area are frequently more left than right (unions are a big part of that). A professional environment has different needs than a job site or a mechanic shop, it's not that surprising.

Do you really believe that Trump's banter is what drives the opposition to him? Because I think that's an incredible thing to say. I find Trump genuinely funny...because he's often so ridiculous. I can tell you that his form of communication is not my problem with him. It's his quite explicit rejection of our foundational ideas, namely democracy that I take exception to. Trump is a very effective con man. He's conned middle American into thinking he's one of them. He's not. He's exploiting their anger for his own benefit.

Agreed with everything you said. And I agree that it is all superficial in nature - because the vast majority of people approach politics superficially, regardless the color of their stripe.

People who really dive into the nitty-gritty of politics, ARE in the minority

 

[Famine]

But it comes back to the fact that if no one votes for a third party, they'll never have a chance.

And if 45 is 47, you (and your children) may well never have a chance to vote for anyone ever again.

If you want third parties to have a chance at elections, actually having elections is the base line.

Again, you have a century of 97-99% of the popular vote cast split over D and R (except Perot, who got 18%, 0 Electors, and is now a punchline) and nothing to show for it. Continuing to do the same thing every four years has got you nowhere. It'll take the electoral demolition of one of the two before you'll see change, and one of them is backing a literal fascist right now. Seems like a golden (shower) opportunity for necessary change...

 

[Danoff]

Right, but my point is this isn't the first time I've heard people telling me this is the end of democracy if politician XYZ wins. It's why I'm skeptical that it'll be true this time around and am saying I require more research and thought on it.

...and my point is that you're not hearing it from the some person or for the same reasons - so it has no bearing on the current conversation.

I think it depends on how long the unrest lasts. There's nothing to say that there won't be some sort of civil war like conflict that arises with a Trump defeat. If states start openingly warring with one another or against the federal government, then I would say that's much worse.

I don't actually think war is worse than losing the war. I'd rather there were a war to fight than to just cede the country to authoritarianism. That being said, I'm not sure war is avoided by electing Trump. Since he is barred by the constitution, and the supreme court is conflicted and refusing to recuse on that subject, there is a clear path to war over an ineligible candidate being elected.

 

[Blitz24]

...and my point is that you're not hearing it from the some person or for the same reasons - so it has no bearing on the current conversation.

I don't actually think war is worse than losing the war. I'd rather there were a war to fight than to just cede the country to authoritarianism. That being said, I'm not sure war is avoided by electing Trump. Since he is barred by the constitution, and the supreme court is conflicted and refusing to recuse on that subject, there is a clear path to war over an ineligible candidate being elected.

Trump would become the 6th ever candidate to lose multiple times (Bryan x3, Clay x3, Dewey, Pinckney, Stevenson).

 

[Yard_Sale]

You guys mean the term “war”….. like, metaphorically, right?

 

[TheHun99]

You guys mean the term “war”….. like, metaphorically, right?

Unfortunately I understand it as an actual, real shooting war, tbh I'm terrified about it.

 

[Yard_Sale]

Unfortunately I understand it as an actual, real shooting war, tbh I'm terrified about it.

You hear this kind of talk of “actual war” being peddled by both sides…predominantly more on the left than on the right from what I can see - and only by the most hyper political and hyperbolic pundits on either side.


And I think it’s only the people who are really into politics that actually believe that crap. People might argue that American politics resemble that of a banana republic, but luckily for us and America, the vast majority of the citizens don’t act like we live in a 3rd world country

 

[Scaff]

You hear this kind of talk of “actual war” being peddled by both sides…predominantly more on the left than on the right from what I can see - and only by the most hyper political and hyperbolic pundits on either side.


And I think it’s only the people who are really into politics that actually believe that crap. People might argue that American politics resemble that of a banana republic, but luckily for us and America, the vast majority of the citizens don’t act like we live in a 3rd world country

Did you miss Jan 6th?

 

[TexRex]

 

[MatskiMonk]

So the way I'd see it working in the US would be that a third-party candidate wouldn't win anything but would instead take away votes from the main two parties, mainly among the independent voters. In order to reclaim those independent voters, the two main parties would then need to run better candidates to win those voters back. As of right now both parties run mediocre to awful candidates and unless you're really on board with one of the parties, you just pick the one who's the least worse.

Again, I don't disagree with the sentiment, and I'm not expert in the US democratic system, so correct me if I'm wrong but the way I see it, is that should a third party gain enough votes to make a difference, it's likely they'd have a couple of seats in the house? With that level of power they could agree to vote inline with D or R, and effectively swing a bill from pass to fail, or vice versa, such is the closeness of your house votes.

We had a similar thing here where a party that only received 0.9% of the national vote entered into an agreement with the largest party in order to take them past 50% of the seats required to have a majority. This was a fairly spectacular **** up for uniquely British reasons, but it demonstrates what the next step would be for a third party in the US - this party got a Billion quid for their manifesto pledges and had a deciding say on some of the biggest 'constitutional' issues of our lifetime (in the UK), for 0.9% of the vote! Even if it only gave the third party the guaranteed support required for one key issue bill, it could be seismic for the supporters of that party. That said, there's no longevity provided to the smaller party, come the next election, a small shift one way or the other could render them irrelevant again. To try and draw another parallel with the UK, in 2010 the third party got into government as part of a coalition required for a majority. One of the issues their voters responded to was the equivalent of student loan forgiveness. That manifesto pledge was ignored by the larger party, so despite getting into government, that party was never able to come good on its pledge, and come the next election its voters lost faith and their vote share declined by 65% and did not recover - the larger party remained in government.

The effect of a disruptive third party is a double edged sword, but it does not last if the system is geared towards winner-takes-all. I agree with your stance if what you are voting for were a simple matter of competing ideologies that are both/all true from a certain point of view, but Trump getting in isn't just about a simple 'return' to conservative or republican ideology, it's a rubber stamp of approval for all the **** Trump and his allies want to inflict on America likely for their own personal gain.

Generally speaking I like most of the US presidents I've seen in my lifetime, If I hadn't looked it up one time I wouldn't be able to tell you which were Red and which were Blue. Trump is a nob, he doesn't deserve to have a say in your government irrespective of the political leanings of his party and it's a sad fact that ballots have to be cast to get him out, but it's fact nonetheless. That is an issue worth sacrificing ideology for, in my humble opinion.

 

[Yard_Sale]

Did you miss Jan 6th?

Was listening to it on the radio on my way home from the desert. It was gross. And I wish capitol police would have cut every last one of those idiots down.


But it was very far from a war.


Was at work for a week straight during the George Floyd riots. Had the riots not been about police brutality and the cops and national guard were allowed to do their jobs, it would have been stamped out much quicker.

Granted, I was in Los Angeles so I can’t speak for other parts of the country, but it looked like just a bunch of opportunists from my perspective in Los Angeles. Much different from the 92’ riots from what I was told by the older guys who worked through both.


Not a war.


Edit:

Btw, where you been man? I miss your weekly sim racing updates on YouTube

 

[Carbonox]

Even if Trump is defeated handily, the likelihood of anything changing is slim to none. Trump was defeated handly last time and all it did was strengthen his ideas. If he loses this time, there will almost certainly be a repeat of January 6th that will be much, much bloodier and Trump will push the narrative that the election is rigged even more so. If Trump loses, half the voting population will likely have lost all trust in the democratic process and that's going to lead to a helluva lot of problems. They'll be different problems than if Trump is elected, but they're still going to be awful for the country.

It's like you're so afraid of what happens if the wannabe dictator loses that you'd rather let him have what he wants and assume that'll quell his bloodlust. Evidently, the intimidation strategy's working on you.

With that attitude you'd be a fine Kremlin asset in Europe, as like the MAGA cult, they're reliant on people that are so openly terrified of (an unlikely) confrontation with the orcs that they'll endorse any politicians they can find (far right? Far left? Anything goes!) that opposes sanctions and Ukraine aid in the name of apparent stability at literally any cost.

 

[Scaff]

Was listening to it on the radio on my way home from the desert. It was gross. And I wish capitol police would have cut every last one of those idiots down.


But it was very far from a war.


Was at work for a week straight during the George Floyd riots. Had the riots not been about police brutality and the cops and national guard were allowed to do their jobs, it would have been stamped out much quicker.

Granted, I was in Los Angeles so I can’t speak for other parts of the country, but it looked like just a bunch of opportunists from my perspective in Los Angeles. Much different from the 92’ riots from what I was told by the older guys who worked through both.


Not a war.


Edit:

Btw, where you been man? I miss your weekly sim racing updates on YouTube

I didn't say it was a war, but it is 3rd world, authoritarian behaviour.

Believe it or not many parts of the world do not look on the US with envy, quite the opposite.

 

[MatskiMonk]

When I attend the wife’s work events, I have to consciously throttle back my personality and banter by at least 50% - and remind myself that they don’t interact at work, or with each other like I do.

"Like, there's me and my bro-dudes, we just want to be all pro-Putin sex offender types as is our right, and the wife's friends are like, your husband's a bit of a ****! it's so unfair dude, I feel like they're oppressing my right to grab my wife's co-workers pussies."

 

[TheHun99]

You hear this kind of talk of “actual war” being peddled by both sides…predominantly more on the left than on the right from what I can see - and only by the most hyper political and hyperbolic pundits on either side.


And I think it’s only the people who are really into politics that actually believe that crap. People might argue that American politics resemble that of a banana republic, but luckily for us and America, the vast majority of the citizens don’t act like we live in a 3rd world country

I don't listen to pundits really, I barely read news as it were because I'm disgusted about the way how the US Congress "works", the fact the people believe Trump, the very fact that people believed Trump in the first place - even with my limited view from outside of the US it was clear that the orange duck was a fraud. I'm also disturbed by the excerpts I hear in Spotify ads of political "podcasts" as they're always "conservative" aka fascists, so yeah, so much about pundits.

From my perspective the right doesn't peddle it much, they're preparing and 1/6 was only a taste of what can/could/will come.

As far as the US being a banana republic: we have a constitution that's first amendment gives religious freedom, yet one of the main parties wants to push down religious ideology on people's throat while the next amendment allows basically anyone bear arms. Combine that with the Supreme Court without a ....ing term limit. Who the F thought that it was a good idea?? Especially with the a-hole Clarence Thomas who is exactly like Trump or Orban who never admits that he's done anything wrong even if the evidence is brighter than the Sun. It's a recipe for disaster. So yeah, very much like a banana republic from multiple aspects

I chose to come to this country, I chose to became a citizen of this country and I maintain that for us this was the right choice. It doesn't mean I'm happy with everything. As I'm reading through this thread I can see very valid points raised. I don't have answers unfortunately but I do fear that no matter the outcome of the presidential election, the Trump cultists can't keep their fingers off the trigger...

 

[Danoff]

You hear this kind of talk of “actual war” being peddled by both sides…

I wasn't peddling anything, and no it was not metaphorical. You'd need to actually pay close attention to what I was saying though. Trump is not eligible to become president, the 14th amendment bars him. If he wins the electoral college, different groups of states each have a valid claim to a different leader under different aspects of the rules. The correct side would be the one saying Trump is ineligible, but the incorrect side will have enough of an argument that it is a clear path to civil war.

That's not peddling or advocating anything, it's observing how we can arrive at one almost by default on our current path.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Agreed with everything you said. And I agree that it is all superficial in nature - because the vast majority of people approach politics superficially, regardless the color of their stripe.

People who really dive into the nitty-gritty of politics, ARE in the minority

I don't think the divide is nearly as Blue Collar vs White Collar as you may think it is. In my experience the divide is rural vs urban (for reasons) and it just so happens that white collar workers tend to be more urban. White collar workers in rural areas tend to be more towards the right, they just aren't as common. And as I noted before, blue collar workers in urban areas tend to be more left.

People in rural areas (and I'm from rural America) tend to interact with the same people for their entire experience there and I think this generates a more insulated perspective. I grew up in small town Texas and going to college was a truly illuminating experience...not because of the academic side of it, but because suddenly I was bumping into people of completely different culture to my own. This is also what happens in urban areas, and the more cosmopolitan a city is, the more you need to tolerate different perspectives, and the more liberal the population naturally becomes. I frequently hear that "coastal elites" simply don't understand small town America, but having lived both sides of that divide, I think its the other way around. (That's not to say there aren't silver-spoon multi-generational elites in big cities or their suburbs that truly don't understand...much of anything, and trust me I live around those types as well). Small town America does not understand urban America moreso than the reverse, because I look around my office and most of my colleagues are from small town America. I've got Hershey PA to my right, and I've got Battle Creek, MI to my left, and I'm Alna, ME - population 710.

 

[Famine]

I wasn't peddling anything, and no it was not metaphorical. You'd need to actually pay close attention to what I was saying though. Trump is not eligible to become president, the 14th amendment bars him. If he wins the electoral college, different groups of states each have a valid claim to a different leader under different aspects of the rules. The correct side would be the one saying Trump is ineligible, but the incorrect side will have enough of an argument that it is a clear path to civil war.

That's not peddling or advocating anything, it's observing how we can arrive at one almost by default on our current path.

The incorrect side, pictured earlier:

... and definitely not preparing for war at all. Nu-uh.

(loving the idiots with The Punisher's logo on them; tops off the look perfectly)

 

[Yard_Sale]

I wasn't peddling anything, and no it was not metaphorical. You'd need to actually pay close attention to what I was saying though. Trump is not eligible to become president, the 14th amendment bars him. If he wins the electoral college, different groups of states each have a valid claim to a different leader under different aspects of the rules. The correct side would be the one saying Trump is ineligible, but the incorrect side will have enough of an argument that it is a clear path to civil war.

That's not peddling or advocating anything, it's observing how we can arrive at one almost by default on our current path.

None of that is going to lead to actual real-life civil war. Civil unrest, probably (hopefully the police and national guard are allowed to handle it correctly this time).

War, nope.

 

[Blitz24]

None of that is going to lead to actual real-life civil war. Civil unrest, probably (hopefully the police and national guard are allowed to handle it correctly this time).

War, nope.

I disagree on that. Trump is like the Fonz if the Fonz was unhinged. He doesn't know how to admit he's wrong or at fault. War is definitely a possibility if he loses. Do I think it will be widespread? Unlikely but it is extremely hard to dismiss it altogether.

 

[Danoff]

None of that is going to lead to actual real-life civil war. Civil unrest, probably (hopefully the police and national guard are allowed to handle it correctly this time).

War, nope.

Literally states will certify electors for president and be at odds with each other over the outcome. It puts states at odds with each other and whichever side the federal system aligns with. Not civil unrest, direct state-level government conflict.

 

[Yard_Sale]

Literally states will certify electors for president and be at odds with each other over the outcome. It puts states at odds with each other and whichever side the federal system aligns with. Not civil unrest, direct state-level government conflict.

Agree with all of that. But in your previous post you mentioned how that could leave to civil war. There’s going to be legal battles no doubt. But that’s a very far cry from men and women taking arms and actually going to war, within the country

 

[Blitz24]

Agree with all of that. But in your previous post you mentioned how that could leave to civil war. There’s going to be legal battles no doubt. But that’s a very far cry from men and women taking arms and actually going to war, within the country

It isn't that far of a leap. The disagreement could easily lead to states refusing cooperation and/or agreements with one another. Once that slope is reached, it could go further downhill very quickly if hyper-partisanship is still prevalent.

 

[Danoff]

Agree with all of that. But in your previous post you mentioned how that could leave to civil war. There’s going to be legal battles no doubt. But that’s a very far cry from men and women taking arms and actually going to war, within the country

No I don't think it is a far cry from that. If some states certify for an ineligible person, and the ineligible person wins, literally about half of the states will have good cause to refuse the presidency, and the other half are in a position to insist. That is almost by default a war. The peaceful transfer of power requires buy-in.

 

[UKMikey]

Meanwhile, at Trump's fraud trial... it's just another normal day:

Trump fraud trial judge ‘sent envelope containing suspicious white powder’

Justice Arthur Engoron presided over Donald Trump’s civil fraud trial and handed down a $454m verdict against him, his adult sons and his associates

www.independent.co.uk

Admittedly Donald Jr. was also sent a packet of white powder this week but I'm not sure whether that was just his regular delivery.

 

[Imari]

I think it depends on how long the unrest lasts. There's nothing to say that there won't be some sort of civil war like conflict that arises with a Trump defeat. If states start openingly warring with one another or against the federal government, then I would say that's much worse.

I think at this point y'all are probably going to need some sort of civil war in order to see any meaningful systemic change for the better. Which is gross and will hurt a lot of people, but I just don't see how it happens otherwise.

The system as it is has obvious flaws and vulnerabilities that people are taking advantage of, and whether politicians don't want to do anything about it or can't do anything about it because of said flaws is really beside the point. It's not changing any time soon short of something forcing the issue.

People might argue that American politics resemble that of a banana republic, but luckily for us and America, the vast majority of the citizens don’t act like we live in a 3rd world country

You have people who cling to their gun rights specifically for the reason that they might need them to fight a civil war. America by nature is closer to a civil war than most western countries. It's a fairly remote possibility, but it's far from unthinkable. You don't need the vast majority of citizens to start a war, just a well armed minority.

The rest of the world would not be surprised at a civil war over the results of the next election.

 

[UKMikey]

Yaaayyy...

Illinois judge kicks Trump off primary ballot - BBC News

The judge has put her ruling on hold to give Mr Trump time to appeal before the state's primary election.

www-bbc-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org

Awwww...

The final outcome will likely be decided by the US Supreme Court.

 

[Blitz24]

Yaaayyy...

Illinois judge kicks Trump off primary ballot - BBC News

The judge has put her ruling on hold to give Mr Trump time to appeal before the state's primary election.

www-bbc-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org

Awwww...

I wonder if they will delay the ruling until after the election.