2024 US Presidential Election Thread

[Famine]

You don't have to convince me of the dangers of Trump.

I just want to know if you'd tell a Palestinian in Michigan whose family members were killed in Gaza by American bombs that they should vote for Kamala.

I wouldn't presume to tell them who to vote for, but I don't really see why her spoken support for, and putative future conduct regarding, Israel is of particular note over and above the actual, military support given by her boss and her boss's predecessor.

And theirs. And the dozen before them.

But it appears one Palestinian at least is urging others to do so:

 

[Danoff]

You don't have to convince me of the dangers of Trump.

I just want to know if you'd tell a Palestinian in Michigan whose family members were killed in Gaza by American bombs that they should vote for Kamala.

I would.

Israel, obviously. Is this supposed to be a gotcha? The whole point is that there are two complicit parties here, Israel carrying out the killing, and the US supplying weapons being used to do it. Israel's culpability does not absolve the US for its actions.

If you give a gun to a (known!) serial killer are you not complicit when they use it to murder people?

No, not strictly speaking.

If you feed a known murderer (via tax dollars funding the prison food), and they use that energy to go murder again on parole, are you complicit in their action? No. Aid to someone who does wrong is not culpability inherently. You'd need more than aid, you'd need to be aware of their future intent, and even I'd argue you'd need to support that future intent.

Thank you for the suggestion. I think I sent a clear message when I sent a literal message to the VP saying I would gladly vote for her if she stopped aid to Israel, but otherwise wouldn't. The truth is I don't feel any shame that my vote won't stop Israel. If my fellow Americans decide to elect Trump and ruin this country, that's on them. I refuse to support genocide to protect my own interests.

If you aid Donald Trump, are you not complicit in his actions?

You have mistakenly determined that a vote for Kamala is a vote for genocide. I think this probably comes from discomfort with your level of powerlessness over the situation over there. But make no mistake, you have very little power over it.

One of the more effective things you can do is to protest. Messaging Harris and telling her that you'll withhold your vote unless she does something she literally cannot do is not doing any good.

Israel sacrifices Palestinians for their own sense of safety. I won't do the same.

Ok good. Glad you're not going to kill any Palestinians. Me neither.

All the more reason it's bizarre that Biden and Harris are so willing to throw away Muslim and Arab votes to support a country that apparently doesn't need our help.

Biden and Harris are not the same person.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Biden won Massachusetts in 2020: 65.6% - 32.14%

Hilary won Massachusetts in 2016: 60.01% - 32.81%

If Trump does so well that he wins Massachusetts, it's because the Democratic party chose to make complicity in a genocide a requirement for defeating him. It's because they said, if you want to defeat Trump, your only choice is to actively cast a vote for someone who will facilitate the murder of tens of thousands of civilians.

I will never, ever forgive them for that.

This is not "I don't really like it either, but oh well." It's unfathomable.


I care quite a lot about the murder of tens of thouasands of civilians. I also care about Americans, and all other humans.

It is not my responsibility to sacrifice Palestinians for the safety and wellbeing of myself or my fellow citizens.

This is a trolley problem.

Trump and Harris voters are fighting over setting the lever to track A or B, both of which have tons of people tied to the tracks. I'm trying to pull it to track C, which has nobody tied to it. But if Harris loses and the trolley runs over all the Americans and who knows who else on track A, I'll get blamed for not pulling towards B, full of Palestinians.

As does voting third party in a state which is so solidly blue that Dems would have to achieve a historic landslide defeat for my vote to actually affect the outcome. If Massachusetts becomes a swing state, the results of Massachusetts won't matter.

First of all, the Biden administration's "indication" of conditioning support is meaningless. They are already sending support, the genocide is already happening, and they are not conditioning the weapons or stopping them. That's all that matters.

Harris has probably said plenty, everything except an actual change in policy.


...







It makes you complicit in the actions she has indicated she would take, such as supporting Israel unequivocally.

I don't buy it. What happens if Harris expresses a difference of opinion? She hurts Biden's election chances? He's not running. She hurts her own chances? Stopping weapons shipments is popular. She hurts US credibility? Genocide, and violations of international and US law hurt it more.

Look, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Harris will do a 180 after being elected, and halt all weapons shipments to Israel. But anything short of that would be complicity in genocide.

I will be asking you your thoughts if Harris wins and continues to send weapons without condition.

And even with all that said, I don't blame anyone for voting for Harris. It's a hard choice, I can't tell anyone what to do. It's the attempt to blame people who are trying not to violate their most basic principles, that I find sickening. It's reminiscent of the campaign against "Bernie Bros" and the blame placed on Sanders supporters for Hilary's loss. Hilary still takes zero responsibility for her loss.

Responsibility... We are currently failing our responsibility to humanity, under a Democratic president, one I voted for. If it doesn't stop now, then my only hope is that Democrats figure out that genocide is unpopular enough to cost them votes. And I'm trying to do that in a way that has almost zero chance of actually affecting the outcome of the election, and I'm still getting fingers wagged at me.

Your logic seems to be - Biden & Harris have facilitated Palestinian suffering, and that's bad, so I will vote in such a way that their suffering will be worse and their future prospects more dim than ever. Punishing Joe Biden for the actions of Israel to the benefit of Donald Trump (regardless of your state) and detriment of Kamala Harris, who has only tenuous agency in the whole thing, is no favor to the Palestinian people, it's just personally vindictive and emotional.

 

[Duke]

I didn't ask whether he was serious about gingivitis, I asked whether you were serious about it.

You said that a vote for the guy with the boot on his head, whose platform includes gingivitis, would not be entirely a joke. I asked whether you were serious about gingivitis.

I floss every day, brush twice a day, and get cleanings and checkups every 6 months. So, yes, I'm at least relatively serious about gingivitis.

Well that doesn't seem reasonable.

The context in which you make your vote matters. There is a lot of love for Harris. But there is also a lot of hate for Trump. I agree with you that your vote can only say so much, which is why I don't see any possible reason to vote for gingivitis guy, unless gingivitis or boot wearing is a bigger issue for you than many other issues. Or unless you want to communicate a joke with your vote.

I can absolutely see a reason to vote for Supreme that is devoid of any attempt at humor. I do not live in a battleground state. Delaware's paltry 3 electoral votes are going to Harris even if I stay home, eat pizza, and watch Thunderbirds reruns all night.

Voting for Harris in my case sends 1 of 3 messages:

1. I like Harris, the Democrats, and their proposed policies
   
   
2. It does not matter who the Democrats run, as long as that person is less intolerable than who the Republicans run
   
   
3. I hate Trump and the Republicans

Remember, my state is going for Harris no matter what I do, and for a state this unimportant, it doesn't matter anyway.

So, really, when I vote Democrat, the only messages that the DNC is likely to receive are 1 and 2. Message 3 is irrelevant - it's completely outweighed by Message 2. And, as I said above, given historical precedent, the message the DNC is most likely to hear is Message 1. Reading Message 3 between the lines is far too nuanced for them, and it does not reinforce their self-image. The DNC is far more likely to interpret a popular victory - particularly, farther down the ticket - as a mandate for their candidates and their policies, rather than a defensive move against the Republicans. It's just the way they are.

If I vote for Supreme, it sends Message 4: I hate Trump and the Republicans, but I don't particularly like the Democrats either. Which, quite frankly, is my actual opinion. It's a perfectly reasonable vote, given the reality of my state's political position.

Now, it happens that I also want to send a message to the Republicans, and that message requires the popular vote to go as much against Trump as possible. So I will accept the Democrats' mistaken impression that I support them as collateral damage from my intent to make the popular vote as clear as possible against the Republicans.

But nothing about any of this, in my case, makes my potential vote for Vermin Supreme "unreasonable". As you say, context matters.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I floss every day, brush twice a day, and get cleanings and checkups every 6 months. So, yes, I'm at least relatively serious about gingivitis.

I can absolutely see a reason to vote for Supreme that is devoid of any attempt at humor. I do not live in a battleground state. Delaware's paltry 3 electoral votes are going to Harris even if I stay home, eat pizza, and watch Thunderbirds reruns all night.

Voting for Harris in my case sends 1 of 3 messages:

1. I like Harris, the Democrats, and their proposed policies
   
   
2. It does not matter who the Democrats run, as long as that person is less intolerable than who the Republicans run
   
   
3. I hate Trump and the Republicans

Remember, my state is going for Harris no matter what I do, and for a state this unimportant, it doesn't matter anyway.

So, really, when I vote Democrat, the only messages that the DNC is likely to receive are 1 and 2. Message 3 is irrelevant - it's completely outweighed by Message 2. And, as I said above, given historical precedent, the message the DNC is most likely to hear is Message 1. Reading Message 3 between the lines is far too nuanced for them, and it does not reinforce their self-image. The DNC is far more likely to interpret a popular victory - particularly, farther down the ticket - as a mandate for their candidates and their policies, rather than a defensive move against the Republicans. It's just the way they are.

If I vote for Supreme, it sends Message 4: I hate Trump and the Republicans, but I don't particularly like the Democrats either. Which, quite frankly, is my actual opinion. It's a perfectly reasonable vote, given the reality of my state's political position.

Now, it happens that I want to send a message to the Republicans, and that message requires the popular vote to go as much against Trump as possible. So I will accept the Democrats mistaken impression that I support them as collateral damage from my intent to make the popular vote as clear as possible against the Republicans.

But nothing about any of this, in my case, makes my potential vote for Vermin Supreme "unreasonable". As you say, context matters.

4. I want the national popular vote to be as lopsided as possible against Donald Trump to make any attempts at post-election subversion in the case of a close Harris win look less legitimate than they would if the popular vote is closer.

edit: I guess you already mentioned this, but not quite in the way I intended

 

[dylansan]

Your logic seems to be - Biden & Harris have facilitated Palestinian suffering, and that's bad, so I will vote in such a way that their suffering will be worse and their future prospects more dim than ever. Punishing Joe Biden for the actions of Israel to the benefit of Donald Trump (regardless of your state) and detriment of Kamala Harris, who has only tenuous agency in the whole thing, is no favor to the Palestinian people, it's just personally vindictive and emotional.

I am not voting in a way that increases suffering for Palestinians. Trump voters are doing that. My vote won't change the results of the election.

Punishing Joe Biden may be the only way to convince Democrats that genocide is too unpopular to continue to support. Ideally Harris will win but be surprised by the amount of third party votes. Either way, that's out of my control.


Tenuous agency? Please. The president has the legal responsibility to stop weapons shipments to a country suspected of war crimes. Biden already did it once, then changed his mind.

I would.

I figured.

I just need to know:

Are you more upset with a Palestinian voter who decides not to vote for Harris after losing family to Israeli strikes, or with Harris herself, whose support for Israel was the reason for that vote?

No, not strictly speaking.

If you feed a known murderer (via tax dollars funding the prison food), and they use that energy to go murder again on parole, are you complicit in their action? No. Aid to someone who does wrong is not culpability inherently. You'd need more than aid, you'd need to be aware of their future intent, and even I'd argue you'd need to support that future intent.

Oh please. The US is not feeding Israel. It is arming it. Arming it with 2000 lb bombs that level buildings. We know American bombs have been used to kill civilians.

Are you seriously arguing that's the same as feeding a hungry prisoner?

If you aid Donald Trump, are you not complicit in his actions?

You have mistakenly determined that a vote for Kamala is a vote for genocide. I think this probably comes from discomfort with your level of powerlessness over the situation over there. But make no mistake, you have very little power over it.

I think some of you don't feel significant enough discomfort over the mass dismemberment of children. Not that you don't find it appalling—I wouldn't accuse you of that—I just think you're finding it too easy to justify ignoring it for the sake of the "greater good", and because you feel more powerless than I do. You don't even think the US has power, which is frankly absurd. Of course we can't stop it. But we can stop arming it.

One of the more effective things you can do is to protest. Messaging Harris and telling her that you'll withhold your vote unless she does something she literally cannot do is not doing any good.

Can you convince me that protesting is more effective? You've stated it as fact, and while I support protesting, I'd like to know why you think it's more effective than voting considering people have been protesting Biden for a year and he hasn't changed course on Israel.

Ok good. Glad you're not going to kill any Palestinians. Me neither.

Biden and Harris are not the same person.

According to you, we cannot judge Harris based on what the Biden administration does, because they are different people, we cannot judge her based on her own statements of unequivocal support for Israel, because she's just hesitating to break with Biden publicly, and we cannot judge her based on her actions in office because she hasn't been President yet...

Seems you've found a loophole. As long as the Democratic party keeps fielding candidates who haven't yet armed a genocide, they can keep arming a genocide and we have to keep voting for them because "maybe they won't this time, no way to know, they said they would consider not doing a genocide"

 

[Jezza819]

Swinney blocked from voting over name snafu

Clemson coach Dabo Swinney said he was not allowed to vote on Election Day; there will be a Friday hearing to resolve the issue.

www.espn.com

Dabo Swinney had to complete a paper ballot and was told there will be a hearing Friday to resolve the issue.

I would be willing to bet that if his last name was Sanchez or Gonzalez there would be no hearing on Friday. He would just be told he couldn't vote and that would be the end of it.

 

[Exorcet]

"Baggage"

"International Affairs"

"Policy differences"

All very palatable ways to describe a genocide and the killing of tens of thousands of men, women and children.

The lack of voting/candidate granularity impacts pretty much every aspect of elections. It's not limited to the situation in Israel, which is indeed horrible. I want to avoid being in the situation where it's difficult to clearly express my opposition of something like genocide just because I'm trying to stop another set of massive rights violations and suffering. I'm not telling you what to do, but I don't agree with your stance on culpability. That the system is broken isn't the fault of the people stuck with it.

We also have had four years of Biden. Can anyone describe a way that we're closer to voting reform or changing the political landscape? Because last I checked we were in danger of losing our Democracy...

We kept Trump out while time made sure he got older and less and less able to be elected in the future. We basically kept the status quo but every indication is that was the safe move to make. It's frustrating that it may appear that no progress was made unless you compare to the hypothetical alternative, but it's probably the best that could have been done. I don't have much innate support for the Democrats, but as of now I feel like the best strategy for the sake of everyone is to use them to prevent truly awful and corrupt people from coming to power. Right now Trump is at the top of that list and he's only getting closer to being physically unable to run, or do much of anything. I don't know if that will be the end of this mess, but I think it's a good waypoint to aim for.

I welcome any and all criticism of me if Harris loses Massachusetts. Rub my face in it. I'll deserve it. For now can we stop pretending that outcome is in any way likely?

I'm not looking to criticize you, I just don't totally understand you view. Stepping back from the election and looking at how I tend to approach risk analysis, if I can do something to push the situation in the right direction I typically will, even if it's only going to amount to a tiny movement of the needle. I was looking for a way to not vote Democrat, but I felt it was too risky personally.

 

[dylansan]

I'm not looking to criticize you, I just don't totally understand you view. Stepping back from the election and looking at how I tend to approach risk analysis, if I can do something to push the situation in the right direction I typically will, even if it's only going to amount to a tiny movement of the needle. I was looking for a way to not vote Democrat, but I felt it was too risky personally.

I really appreciate you taking this tone considering our difference of opinion and the importance of this election. It means a lot.

I also take the stance of "if I can do something incremental" to push things, I should. I disagree with Harris on some policies but I was absolutely willing to look past it to vote against Trump. Until she came out in support of Israel, and expressed no difference in policy to Biden. I cannot in good conscience vote for her.

However, there is still purpose to my vote. The incremental change I'm pushing for is pushing the Democrats to feel less safe doing unpopular things. They should have learned this with Hillary, but didn't. I want Democrats to feel like progressive policies, and importantly, ethical policies, are no longer politically dangerous, but actually necessary for victory. I think the more third party votes there are in this election, and the fewer votes Harris gets in seemingly "safe" areas, the harder it will be for the party to ignore things that matter to people.

Harris spent the last few months catering to Republicans, getting endorsements from the Cheneys, dropping progressive policies from the party platform, at the expense of voters in her base. Because she and the party think her base will vote for her no matter what. I think that is not only bad for policy because it means the party drifts to the right over time, it's also bad strategically because she is unlikely to win over many voters for being more conservative, compared to those she loses for dropping important progressive causes.

Even though my vote is a drop in the ocean, if everyone voted for candidates that actually represented them, we'd be in a better place. People feel stuck because the status quo feels inevitable. It's too hard to convince enough voters to abandon the two party system because of the risk of getting a worse candidate. I think it's more feasible to convince the party itself that it's risky not to listen to voters. That, and if a third party gets 5%, they get access to more funding, making them an even bigger risk to a Democratic party that rejects popular policy.

This strategy is long term. I know it's unlikely to make a difference, and this is just one election. It just seems impossible to get out of this without rejecting the current strategy. The Democrats need to learn that they can't just be the lesser evil forever, they have to actually stop being evil. I don't want that lesson to cost them an election. Especially now. But if it does, it's their own fault. This should be a landslide for the Dems. A lot of people with similar thoughts to mine were so relieved when Kamala became the nominee. It felt like a rejection of Biden's foreign policy. But then it evaporated and Harris swung to the right. It has to matter what they do. If you vote blue no matter who, you give them permission to ignore you.

Again, in another state, this would be an impossible choice. But in MA, a third party vote is not so difficult. No one is going to convince me that I'm actually helping Trump. I know the election is important. But if sending a message to Dems is not allowed, then I'm not going to be convinced to "send a message" rejecting Trump either.

And I respect your decision to vote for Harris. It's not an easy election. There is no one correct answer that solves everything. We all have to live with the consequences of our actions. But we should all also be careful not to direct our blame toward those who want better, more than at those who vote for the greater of two evils.

We have different strategies, but we're on the same side, as far as fundamental beliefs about what's good and right.

 

[TB]

4. I want the national popular vote to be as lopsided as possible against Donald Trump to make any attempts at post-election subversion in the case of a close Harris win look less legitimate than they would if the popular vote is closer.

Precisely why I voted for Harris/Walz even though it will make no difference in the state and therefore the EC.

 

[Joey D]

I'm not sure a lopsided popular vote will do anything for Trump. He's going to claim a fraudulent election no matter what. A bigger number means he'll claim the Democrats cheated to make him look bad. A small number means he'll claim that the Democrats cheated just enough so they could win. His supporters are going to say the same thing no matter what as well.

 

[Danoff]

I floss every day, brush twice a day, and get cleanings and checkups every 6 months. So, yes, I'm at least relatively serious about gingivitis.

I can absolutely see a reason to vote for Supreme that is devoid of any attempt at humor. I do not live in a battleground state. Delaware's paltry 3 electoral votes are going to Harris even if I stay home, eat pizza, and watch Thunderbirds reruns all night.

Voting for Harris in my case sends 1 of 3 messages:

1. I like Harris, the Democrats, and their proposed policies
   
   
2. It does not matter who the Democrats run, as long as that person is less intolerable than who the Republicans run
   
   
3. I hate Trump and the Republicans

Remember, my state is going for Harris no matter what I do, and for a state this unimportant, it doesn't matter anyway.

So, really, when I vote Democrat, the only messages that the DNC is likely to receive are 1 and 2. Message 3 is irrelevant - it's completely outweighed by Message 2. And, as I said above, given historical precedent, the message the DNC is most likely to hear is Message 1. Reading Message 3 between the lines is far too nuanced for them, and it does not reinforce their self-image. The DNC is far more likely to interpret a popular victory - particularly, farther down the ticket - as a mandate for their candidates and their policies, rather than a defensive move against the Republicans. It's just the way they are.

Based on how much political analysis is going into how people are voting, it is super clear that a lot of people are voting against Trump even if not for the democrats. That's really not hard to see from the data, and it's evidenced in the fact that Harris's campaign has come to center, or maybe even a bit right of center. Her campaign doesn't feel particularly left at all. Most of the big left stuff is dead and gone. She's come way to the middle in part because she knows that fringe democrat positions are not popular among persuadable voters.

Unfortunately for you and me, our core values when it comes to a vote for Harris are also not that popular among persuadable voters. The biggest issues for swaying swing voters are things like expansion of medicare, child tax credits, and improvements in home buying like first time buying assistance and expanded construction.

I think Harris's absolute top mandate from among her supporters is to codify roe, or something like that. I think that's higher than any other issue. If that's done through supreme court reform, so much the better. But it wouldn't be my personal top-line priority, my policy preference would be the elimination of the electoral college through whatever the best route is (whether that's the national popular vote compact or some other method).

If I vote for Supreme, it sends Message 4: I hate Trump and the Republicans, but I don't particularly like the Democrats either. Which, quite frankly, is my actual opinion. It's a perfectly reasonable vote, given the reality of my state's political position.

Now, it happens that I also want to send a message to the Republicans, and that message requires the popular vote to go as much against Trump as possible. So I will accept the Democrats' mistaken impression that I support them as collateral damage from my intent to make the popular vote as clear as possible against the Republicans.

But nothing about any of this, in my case, makes my potential vote for Vermin Supreme "unreasonable". As you say, context matters.

No, a vote for vermin says you're crazy and want the boot-wearing gingivitis guy in the white house, who would be an insane disaster, or that you're not serious with your vote. Honestly, you're better off abstaining than voting for an insane person.

Voting for something you don't actually want, like for vermin to run the country, and let's be honest, nobody actually wants that (possibly even him), is throwing yourself against the safety net hoping it will hold. It's the same thing @dylansan does by assuming that his state with go how he wants it to go so that he can try to prove some other point. The idea is to use the safety net that what you're actually asking for won't actually happen, and instead other people will use their vote responsibly, and give you the security to play. It was a fun game when we had that security. It's not as fun when we don't.

I honestly cannot think about voting that way any longer.

I figured.

I just need to know:

Are you more upset with a Palestinian voter who decides not to vote for Harris after losing family to Israeli strikes, or with Harris herself, whose support for Israel was the reason for that vote?

You mean Biden? You do know that Harris is not the president right?

I'm more upset with the voter who decides not to vote for Harris (not that this question really belongs in reality, it's not something I need to choose between). The reason I'm more upset with that voter is because Harris is not Israel. She is not Netanyahu. She is not in charge of the Israeli military. She is not in charge of congress. She is not (yet) president of the US either. And the voter who blames her for the death of family members at the hands of Israelis is deeply confused about her role.

Oh please. The US is not feeding Israel. It is arming it. Arming it with 2000 lb bombs that level buildings. We know American bombs have been used to kill civilians.

Are you seriously arguing that's the same as feeding a hungry prisoner?

I said that philosophically aiding a murderer does not make you culpable inherently, which was a misunderstanding you seemed to be making. I listed what can make you culpable.

I think some of you don't feel significant enough discomfort over the mass dismemberment of children. Not that you don't find it appalling—I wouldn't accuse you of that—I just think you're finding it too easy to justify ignoring it for the sake of the "greater good", and because you feel more powerless than I do. You don't even think the US has power, which is frankly absurd. Of course we can't stop it. But we can stop arming it.

We should stop arming it. And that won't stop it. I think you over-estimate not just US voter agency in this, but US agency in it. We could probably stop it, but we'd likely have to go to war with Israel to make sure of it. And as much as I don't like what Israel is doing, I'm not to the point where I want to see the US go to war with them.

Can you convince me that protesting is more effective? You've stated it as fact, and while I support protesting, I'd like to know why you think it's more effective than voting considering people have been protesting Biden for a year and he hasn't changed course on Israel.

It actually has caused some tension and pause within the democratic party. What makes protesting more effective is that you can send the message you want to send. Abstaining from voting is not clear enough, even when coupled with an email that asks Harris to do something she actually can't do.

According to you, we cannot judge Harris based on what the Biden administration does, because they are different people, we cannot judge her based on her own statements of unequivocal support for Israel, because she's just hesitating to break with Biden publicly, and we cannot judge her based on her actions in office because she hasn't been President yet...

Seems you've found a loophole. As long as the Democratic party keeps fielding candidates who haven't yet armed a genocide, they can keep arming a genocide and we have to keep voting for them because "maybe they won't this time, no way to know, they said they would consider not doing a genocide"

I don't even judge Biden as harshly as you judge Harris. And Biden had a hell of a lot more to do with it than Harris. But republicans in congress have even more to do with it (and you've already stopped thinking about that haven't you?). She has not made statements of unequivocal support of Israel to the best of my knowledge. You quoted her making a statement (that was not unequivocal support), and left out the context that included the stuff that it's wrong for Israel to be doing.

 

[Duke]

@Danoff :

So... it's clear a vote FOR Harris is a vote AGAINST Trump.

But... it's NOT clear that a vote FOR Supreme is a vote AGAINST both Trump AND Harris.

Got it. I disagree, but I got it.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I am not voting in a way that increases suffering for Palestinians. Trump voters are doing that. My vote won't change the results of the election.

Punishing Joe Biden may be the only way to convince Democrats that genocide is too unpopular to continue to support. Ideally Harris will win but be surprised by the amount of third party votes. Either way, that's out of my control.


Tenuous agency? Please. The president has the legal responsibility to stop weapons shipments to a country suspected of war crimes. Biden already did it once, then changed his mind.

Notably not Kamala Harris.

 

[Danoff]

@Danoff :

So... it's clear a vote FOR Harris is a vote AGAINST Trump.

But... it's NOT clear that a vote FOR Supreme is a vote AGAINST both Trump AND Harris.

Got it. I disagree, but I got it

I didn't mean that the calculation is the same for everyone. That's entirely too simplistic. Given your likely party affiliation history, I'd say that a vote for harris FROM YOU is clearly a vote against Trump. But that wouldn't be the same for every demographic.

A vote for Vermin FROM YOU ESPECIALLY is a vote to put an insane person in office, who you don't even want to be there. And I think that's extremely confusing. Like I said, you'd send that message more clearly by abstaining.

If you're against Trump, one of the biggest ways you can be against Trump is to vote for his opponent (which is only Harris). That's not true of a vote for vermin. A vote for a guy wearing a boot says something about you, but not good things.

 

[Touring Mars]

If ever there was a time for tactical voting, this was it. You might not get another chance.

 

[Danoff]

Seems you've found a loophole. As long as the Democratic party keeps fielding candidates who haven't yet armed a genocide, they can keep arming a genocide and we have to keep voting for them because "maybe they won't this time, no way to know, they said they would consider not doing a genocide"

To rephrase, you're saying that as long as someone new keeps running for president, you can't hold them accountable for the actions of some other president.

Yea, pretty much.

 

[Obelisk]

I just saw something on Twitter/X where Jill Stein has apparently withdrawn from the election. Anyone else see anything to that effect?

Edit: There's some kind of kerfuffle in Ohio related to her...

 

[Blitz24]

I just saw something on Twitter/X where Jill Stein has apparently withdrawn from the election. Anyone else see anything to that effect?

On my ballot she was one over from a write-in candidate so....

 

[Obelisk]

On my ballot she was one over from a write-in candidate so....

I amended my last comment. There's some kind of legal drama in Ohio over her being on the ballot but votes for her not being counted.

 

[Famine]

What's the deal with US exit polls?

In the UK, we get the first 10pm bong and then all the channels say "Dave Bastard has won, with a majority of 63" and a precise breakdown of all 650 constituencies, followed by eight hours of the results coming in and revealing that Dave Bastard won with a majority of 65.

All the US exit polls are like "44% of Randy Arsestain supporters believe in the sea, while the adoption of the tangelo as our national fruit was #6 among the priorities of Leprosy Fartcandle supporters."

 

[Blitz24]

What's the deal with US exit polls?

In the UK, we get the first 10pm bong and then all the channels say "Dave Bastard has won, with a majority of 63" and a precise breakdown of all 650 constituencies, followed by eight hours of the results coming in and revealing that Dave Bastard won with a majority of 65.

All the US exit polls are like "44% of Randy Arsestain supporters believe in the sea, while the adoption of the tangelo as our national fruit was #6 among the priorities of Leprosy Fartcandle supporters."

We can't count. Also, we have a lot of mail-in ballots that cannot be touched until after polls close.