2024 US Presidential Election Thread

[Danoff]

I mean, maybe it's time....

It took many years of dysfunction leading up to the previous civil war before people were willing to start shooting. And even then the attempt was to just nope out of the union first. It's tempting to think that slavery was a bigger deal to fight over. But it wasn't. At this point it's looking like we're fighting over democracy and constitutional rule - even more fundamental concepts than slavery.

Civil war is only meaningfully possible if the military takes both sides. If they take one side, that's pretty much it. I'm not sure how likely it is to get a meaningful military split no matter the way that it goes.

Some states might decide to nope out. We should maybe let them.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

It took many years of dysfunction leading up to the previous civil war before people were willing to start shooting. And even then the attempt was to just nope out of the union first. It's tempting to think that slavery was a bigger deal to fight over. But it wasn't. At this point it's looking like we're fighting over democracy and constitutional rule - even more fundamental concepts than slavery.

Civil war is only meaningfully possible if the military takes both sides. If they take one side, that's pretty much it. I'm not sure how likely it is to get a meaningful military split no matter the way that it goes.

Some states might decide to nope out. We should maybe let them.

For what it's worth, I think military leadership (the one's who are intelligent and educated) hate Donald Trump, because he's an undisciplined blowhard with zero respect for them. Low ranking, enlisted soldiers are probably more on Trump's side, but they could never organize effectively. I struggle to see Donald Trump being able to wield the US military against US targets, basically.

 

[HenrySwanson]

So I'm not going to use potentially lethal force absent a legitimate threat of imminent physical harm, but I do have concerns that I'd actually be capable of that particular action in such a situation. I mean...do I have it in me? I find myself increasingly less concerned about my capacity to neutralize such a threat posed by a red hat.

The debate made me think of the history of the USA, and how it resisted oppressive rule with violence.

While I am considering reversing my previous position on the situation you are alluding to....where is the limit? Do you threaten lethal force against proponents of a very high upper limit on abortion because of the rights of the birthing parent even though it goes against the views of the majority of said nation? Which other rights (and to what extent) are worth starting a civil war over (let's be frank, this is where the discussion is heading towards based on recent posts).

 

[Blitz24]

For what it's worth, I think military leadership (the one's who are intelligent and educated) hate Donald Trump, because he's an undisciplined blowhard with zero respect for them. Low ranking, enlisted soldiers are probably more on Trump's side, but they could never organize effectively. I struggle to see Donald Trump being able to wield the US military against US targets, basically.

Might see the "militias" try to LARP as the military for Trump but aside from a few lone wolves, most of the military will probably not side with him.

 

[TheCracker]

For what it's worth, I think military leadership (the one's who are intelligent and educated) hate Donald Trump, because he's an undisciplined blowhard with zero respect for them. Low ranking, enlisted soldiers are probably more on Trump's side, but they could never organize effectively. I struggle to see Donald Trump being able to wield the US military against US targets, basically.

Trump is pretty much an isolationist, he's shown that in his disregard for the concept of NATO. Pull out of NATO and you are effectively going to have to pull your troops out of and shut down the bases you hold in NATO countries. That's 65,000+ service troops and god knows how many other military-paid personnel suddenly without a purpose. Military big wigs are not going to be happy with that.

 

[Danoff]

For what it's worth, I think military leadership (the one's who are intelligent and educated) hate Donald Trump, because he's an undisciplined blowhard with zero respect for them. Low ranking, enlisted soldiers are probably more on Trump's side, but they could never organize effectively. I struggle to see Donald Trump being able to wield the US military against US targets, basically.

The top brass has a tendency to resign when asked to do things they don't support. And while that's better than doing it, they generally get replaced until someone is found that IS willing to carry out orders. Basically they either remove themselves or get removed until someone shows up who is willing. A lot of resignations happened n the last Trump admin. His supporters loved it because they felt like it was business getting done, poor performers getting replaced by hard working folk. But it was just sifting through for cronies. Good people were lighting their careers on fire over principles.

 

[Imari]

Some states might decide to nope out. We should maybe let them.

It would probably be the less damaging solution all around. An actual civil war gets a bunch of people killed and destroys a whole lot of infrastructure, and the result is either some states leave anyway or the greater US is stuck trying to pacify a bunch of states that don't really want to be there. You just know that there's going to be a bunch of rednecks hiding in the forest playing guerilla warfare for years.

IMO, the weaponry available in the modern day even at a relatively low level is too effective to make the idea of a civil war tolerable. If people want to **** off and do their own thing, best of luck to them. Give it a decade and they'll figure out why the United States united in the first place.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

She has already dropped out. I naively expected a better showing before the primary began, but in reality the GOP has changed so much and driven out so many moderates, that he's really the only one capable of winning the Republican nomination. This is a radically different party than it was when Bush was president. It's disheartening to see a career con man being so successful at manipulating people.

My big question is still....what are Haley's voters going to do in the GE? While her roughly 25% (average per state) is not a significant challenge to Trump in the primary, that amount of GOP voters seem fairly committed to voting for not Trump, period. It's one thing to sit home and not bother with the primary if you don't like the candidate who is definitely going to win, its quite another to actively go out and vote against him knowing it's futile. If 2024 turnout is anything like 2020 turnout, Trump simply cannot win if 25% of the GOP won't vote for him, even with the ridiculous electoral college advantages the GOP has.

So despite all other candidates dropping out of the race, Trump still only got 81.2% of the vote in the Florida primary, with DeSantis and Haley securing a combined 17.8%. Trump got 94% in 2020. Is Trump really going to get all these people on his side come the GE? I realize that a primary election that doesn't matter and the GE that matters a lot are two very different things (basically voting for not-Trump in this primary is a risk-free action), but that is a lot of voters choosing not-Trump in what should be prime Trump country.

 

[Danoff]

It would probably be the less damaging solution all around. An actual civil war gets a bunch of people killed and destroys a whole lot of infrastructure, and the result is either some states leave anyway or the greater US is stuck trying to pacify a bunch of states that don't really want to be there. You just know that there's going to be a bunch of rednecks hiding in the forest playing guerilla warfare for years.

IMO, the weaponry available in the modern day even at a relatively low level is too effective to make the idea of a civil war tolerable. If people want to **** off and do their own thing, best of luck to them. Give it a decade and they'll figure out why the United States united in the first place.

Arguably we should have done this at the civil war, because many of the southern states have not gotten over it, still, and haven't integrated well. Granted, they were committing atrocities that the US government may have felt responsible for (and was) and felt obligated to put an end to. My understanding of the civil war is that that was not the reason for the fighting, though. It was to preserve the union in a more nationalistic sense.

That's not the case right now though. I don't think the US owes states that don't want to remain. If they want out, it might be cleaner to let them figure it out on their own.

 

[TB]

If they want out, it might be cleaner to let them figure it out on their own.

In an ironic twist, they'd probably call themselves South Americans.

 

[McLaren]

I agree with all of that. I just think that in the end, the Republican voters that make up her constituency, will end up pulling the lever for Trump.

Hailey will endorse Trump. Give it time.

This isn't working out so well at the moment, it seems.

Donors who supported Nikki Haley in her Republican primary campaign are set to switch their allegiance to Joe Biden, as he prepares to face Donald Trump in the presidential election later this year.

Haley, the former South Carolina governor, dropped out of the primary race earlier this month in the wake of Super Tuesday. Media mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg called Harry Sloan, who had previously helped bring in at least $550,000 for Haley through fundraising receptions, and asked him to donate to Biden instead. He has also donated to Democrats in the past and gave $100,000 to a pro-Biden political action committee, Future Forward, last year.

Speaking to CNBC, Sloan said he agreed to help raise money for Biden

"People I know who are generally business Republicans, they're going to hear from me" about helping Biden, Sloan said.

Nikki Haley donors switch to Joe Biden over Donald Trump

A prominent Haley backer has agreed to help raise money for the Democrat now Trump has won the Republican primary.

www.newsweek.com

Just 18% of Haley voters in Ohio said they'd vote for Trump in the fall, per the exit poll.

Sixty percent of Haley voters also called the Republican Party "too conservative," as did 19% of GOP primary voters overall. Additionally, as in previous races this year, a minority of Republican voters -- 42% -- considered themselves "part of the MAGA movement."

Nearly half of Haley voters in Ohio say they'd back Biden: Exit polls

Among voters supporting Nikki Haley in preliminary exit poll results, nearly half say they’d back Joe Biden in November.

abcnews.go.com

While the former president won the primary with 910,857 votes, 81.2 percent of the overall share, some 197,000 people, or 17.8 percent, voted for either Nikki Haley or Ron DeSantis, despite both candidates having dropped out of the race.

The results suggest the former president is losing support in Florida compared with the previous election in 2020. That year, he won about 94 percent of the state vote in the primary.

Donald Trump suffers brutal Florida primary vote against him

Trump has lost support in Florida since 2020, when he won about 94 percent of the vote in its state primary compared with this year's 81 percent.

www.newsweek.com

*I'm not going to bother quoting the member directly b/c frankly, they clearly have no intent on actually sticking around to discuss their stances before departing for extended periods.

 

[UKMikey]

Republicans aren't interested in signing a bipartisan immigration bill and now they've rejected a motion to impeach Joe Biden. Could it be they don't have solid evidence of his wrongdoing after all and are just trying to spread doubt and confusion amongst voters?

Republicans reject motion to impeach Joe Biden

Democrat Jared Moskowitz tried to put a motion on the table for a vote in an effort to call the GOP's bluff in the Biden probe.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Blitz24]

Republicans aren't interested in signing a bipartisan innigration bill and now they've rejected a motion to impeach Joe Biden. Could it be they don't have solid evidence of his wrongdoing and are just trying to spread doubt and confusion amongst voters?

Republicans reject motion to impeach Joe Biden

Democrat Jared Moskowitz tried to put a motion on the table for a vote in an effort to call the GOP's bluff in the Biden probe.

www.newsweek.com

They don't want to look stupid by putting their name to a vote that will fail and end up risking being primaried.

 

[sturk0167]

Ha ha
You clowns still think Biden has a chance?

 

[GBO Possum]

Ha ha
You clowns still think "Retribution" will make your life better? And the lives of your kids and grandkids?

What about "Bloodbath"? That too?

 

[sturk0167]

What about "Bloodbath"? That too?

You want to buy a Chinese car?
That's what the comment was about.
Go ahead. Buy one.

 

[Imari]

You want to buy a Chinese car?
That's what the comment was about.
Go ahead. Buy one.

I already have a Volvo, thanks.

 

[Scaff]

You want to buy a Chinese car?
That's what the comment was about.
Go ahead. Buy one.

Of course it was, just like his rally/event at an auto-union shop wasn't actually faked.

 

[UKMikey]

In Ohio campaign rally, Trump says there will be a "bloodbath" if he loses November election

Trump delivered a profanity-filled version of his usual rally speech that again painted an apocalyptic picture of the country if President Biden wins a second term.

www.cbsnews.com

OK, let's say the bloodbath comment was "misinterpreted" although "that will be the least of it" doesn't sound like it was clearly about the car economy to me.

Trump goes on to say that "if this election isn't won, I'm not sure that you'll ever have another election in this country". What's his evidence for this? After all, Biden's not the one who said he wanted to be a dictator on day one and praised the mob who wanted to overthrow the government as unbelievable patriots. That was Trump himself.

But the polls this month look pretty even right now. Why wouldn't Biden have a chance?

President: general election Polls

The latest political polls and polling averages from FiveThirtyEight.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

 

[Blitz24]

In Ohio campaign rally, Trump says there will be a "bloodbath" if he loses November election

Trump delivered a profanity-filled version of his usual rally speech that again painted an apocalyptic picture of the country if President Biden wins a second term.

www.cbsnews.com

OK, let's say the bloodbath comment was "misinterpreted" although "that will be the least of it" doesn't sound like it was clearly about the car economy to me.

Trump goes on to say that "if this election isn't won, I'm not sure that you'll ever have another election in this country". What's his evidence for this? After all, Biden's not the one who said he wanted to be a dictator on day one and praised the mob who wanted to overthrow the government as unbelievable patriots. That was Trump himself.

But the polls this month look pretty even right now. Why wouldn't Biden have a chance?

President: general election Polls

The latest political polls and polling averages from FiveThirtyEight.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

Biden would probably have less of a chance if it were someone other than Trump running against him.

 

[UKMikey]

Biden would probably have less of a chance if it were someone other than Trump running against him.

Trump would have more of a chance if he weren't running against a candidate at all. But my comment was directed to the guy calling everyone else clowns for thinking Biden still has one. It's difficult to argue that he doesn't as things look fairly even at the moment.

 

[GBO Possum]

You want to buy a Chinese car?
That's what the comment was about.
Go ahead. Buy one.

That's what you heard. Many disagree, some supporting their interpretation by quoting prior, less ambiguous encouragements of violence.

And I grant that he spoke ambiguously.

Responsible leaders make an effort to be not misunderstood, and especially avoid using words which may be construed to be inciting violence.

@sturk0167, Let's go back to the question you cut out of my post. Maybe you'd like to answer it?

You clowns still think "Retribution" will make your life better? And the lives of your kids and grandkids?

 

[Joey D]

You want to buy a Chinese car?
That's what the comment was about.
Go ahead. Buy one.

His comment shows that he doesn't know anything about how the auto industry works. A 100% tariff on foreign-made cars (nevermind the president can't enact tariffs) would bankrupt the American auto industry. Also, how do you define a foreign made car? Is it something assembled outside of the country or is it something assembled in America with imported parts?

Also, Americans won't buy Chinese cars. Volvo is an exception because most people believe it's still a Swedish company (and it kind of is), but for the most part Chinese cars won't catch on in America and many of the models won't be able to get by intellectual property laws.

 

[Pupik]

Also, Americans won't buy Chinese cars.

Well, some GM vehicles have an L as the first character of the VIN.

Volvo is an exception because most people believe it's still a Swedish company (and it kind of is), but for the most part Chinese cars won't catch on in America and many of the models won't be able to get by intellectual property laws.

Interestingly, some of the Volvo mechanics I've worked with in recent years have told me the Chinese-produced vehicles aren't any less reliable and in some specific cases, slight improvements. But there hasn't been 10-15 years of long term data yet.

 

[Joey D]

Well, some GM vehicles have an L as the first character of the VIN.

I guess I should say Americans won't knowingly buy Chinese vehicles. But your comment shows just how much a 100% tariff would bankrupt domestic automakers. As for GM vehicles, I think the Buick Envision is one but I can't think of any others. I know there are Buicks that are made for the Chinese market but they're built both in China and the US.

Interestingly, some of the Volvo mechanics I've worked with in recent years have told me the Chinese-produced vehicles aren't any less reliable and in some specific cases, slight improvements. But there hasn't been 10-15 years of long term data yet.

I had a Chinese Volvo, and, at least for me, it was significantly more problematic than the Ford-made Volvo. I liked the car, but I did not like servicing the car.

 

[TheCracker]

Also, Americans won't buy Chinese cars.

They said the same about Japanese cars in the early 70's.

 

[Joey D]

They said the same about Japanese cars in the early 70's.

I think the difference is that the sentiment among Americans is that China is an enemy state while Japan isn't. Yes, you still have older people who won't touch Japanese cars because "they bombed Pearl Harbor" but in the 1970s the idea of Japan being an enemy had largely passed. Japanese products are also seen as technologically advanced, reliable, and good, whereas Chinese products are seen as inferior, cheap, and something you throw away. While the reality is both countries make good and bad things, changing public perception is going to be incredibly hard. Even the Koreans haven't fully recovered when they sent us the most god awful vehicles that only sold because they had a huge warranty.

Maybe things will change in 20-30 years, but I just can't see a Chinese brand making it in the US.

 

[Meythia]

They said the same about Japanese cars in the early 70's.

There is a difference between not buying a japanese car because foreign and a chinese car because communism (or friends of Putin) that I could see.

 

[TheCracker]

I think the difference is that the sentiment among Americans is that China is an enemy state while Japan isn't. Yes, you still have older people who won't touch Japanese cars because "they bombed Pearl Harbor" but in the 1970s the idea of Japan being an enemy had largely passed. Japanese products are also seen as technologically advanced, reliable, and good, whereas Chinese products are seen as inferior, cheap, and something you throw away. While the reality is both countries make good and bad things, changing public perception is going to be incredibly hard. Even the Koreans haven't fully recovered when they sent us the most god awful vehicles that only sold because they had a huge warranty.

Maybe things will change in 20-30 years, but I just can't see a Chinese brand making it in the US.

There was still an awful lot of anti-Japanese sentiment around at that time. Vincent Chin? The Japanese got a foothold because US manufacturers were slow to adapt to a changing world. I'm not sure they've learnt those lessons any better. You say the Koreans haven't recovered, but they still sold 1.5m cars in the US in '21. That's 10% of all cars sold that year. They may need a different business model to the japanese in the 70's and the Koreans in the 90's, but if there's a gap in the market they will exploit it and US customers will buy Chinese cars if home-grown cars don't suit their needs.

 

[GBO Possum]

Maybe things will change in 20-30 years, but I just can't see a Chinese brand making it in the US.

I'm not so confident that a country whose people love are addicted to "cheap" and who already buy all their clothes, electronics and other goods from China would draw the line at buying a car from the same enemy that makes their tee-shirts, shoes and iPhones.