2024 US Presidential Election Thread

[opelgt1969]

I've read it multiple times and all possible language that would fall foul of the AUP is censored out unless I've missed something. So yes, the post is OK.

So you edited out the word 'god******' pretty god****** obvious

 

[Liquid]

So you edited out the word 'god******' pretty god****** obvious

Do you have anything meaningful or constructive to contribute to the thread? The oneupmanship is tiring.

Trump won.
Everyone knows.

What now?

 

[Joey D]

So you edited out the word 'god******' pretty god****** obvious

Goddamn doesn't hit the swear filters. If it's not hitting the swear filters, it was likely determined that it's OK to use because a bunch of other words do hit the swear filters. But if a mod says it's OK, then I don't see how it's not. They're literally the rule enforcers.

 

[Roo]

So you edited out the word 'god******' pretty god****** obvious

"Goddamned" is not a swear word.

Some of the regular posters here highlight how conservatives such as yourself are desperate to play the victim in every situation. It's real difficult to consider that hyperbole when you keep turning up and proving them right.

 

[Scaff]

So you edited out the word 'god******' pretty god****** obvious

Ah, goddamned it's a word the AUP doesn't has an issue with, you can tell because I just typed it and the site software hasn't auto-censored it.

 

[opelgt1969]

Ah, goddamned it's a word the AUP has an issue with, you can tell because I just typed it and the site software hasn't auto-censored it.

OK if the filter allows it then I don't have a problem with the filter. My bad but I do personally have a problem with it.

 

[Terronium-12]

You should get over it.

 

[TexRex]

It doesn't seems like Dems trying to change outdated immigration laws, they , for whatever reason, are fine with creating undocumented population. US citizens aren't happy that US laws don't work.

It doesn't seem like you know what you're talking about.

Are illegal immigrants creating profits for US economy? Sure, they do. Doesn't mean that correctly working system isn't better for everyone.

What is "correct"?

I do personally have a problem with it.

Affronts to religious delusion are not legitimate harm. Offense alone isn't legitimate harm.

 

[Kriptical]

OK if the filter allows it then I don't have a problem with the filter. My bad but I do personally have a problem with it.

Do you dislike it as much as comma’s?

 

[HenrySwanson]

View attachment 1404344
View attachment 1404345

Likely not much they could have done differently:

The global trend that pushed Donald Trump to victory

Incumbents everywhere are doing poorly. America just proved it’s not exceptional.

www.vox.com

To explain what truly happened, we need to look at global trends as a point of comparison. And when we do, a clear picture emerges: What happened on Tuesday is part of a worldwide wave of anti-incumbent sentiment.
2024 was the largest year of elections in global history; more people voted this year than ever before. And across the world, voters told the party in power — regardless of their ideology or history — that it was time for a change.
We saw this anti-incumbent wave in elections in the United Kingdom and Botswana; in India and North Macedonia; and in South Korea and South Africa. It continued a global trend begun in the previous year, when voters in Poland and Argentina opted to move on from current leadership. The handful of 2024 exceptions to this general rule look like true outliers: The incumbent party’s victory in Mexico, for example, came after 20 straight defeats for incumbents across Latin America.
Given Trump’s victory, we can confidently say the United States is not exceptional. Three different exit polls found that at least 70 percent of Americans were dissatisfied with the country’s current direction, and they took it out on the current ruling party. (While exit polls are based on preliminary, rather than comprehensive, data sets, it is notable that so many polls appear to be picking up on the same trend.) Trump registered as the change candidate despite being a former president himself, and the voters rewarded him accordingly.
Once we start thinking about the US election result as part of a global trend, rather than an isolated event, we can start to make a little more sense of what just happened here.

=======

@opelgt1969, people have given you the benefit of the doubt but you still haven't responded to many questions. You can surely see how this doesn't look good on your part, right?

 

[Scaff]

So we have the first Project 2025 contributor as a pick by Trump, but he had nothing to do with it and doesn't agree with it.

 

[inCloud]

What is "correct"?

According to law

 

[McLaren]

So we have the first Project 2025 contributor as a pick by Trump, but he had nothing to do with it and doesn't agree with it.

He knows nothing about it, but he disagrees with some of it.

He knows some of the things they say are absolutely ridiculous & abysmal, but he wishes them luck.

 

[TexRex]

According to law

What is it about the law that makes it "correct"?

 

[Joey D]

Interesting article looking at the voting patterns of Dearborn:

Trump breaks GOP losing streak in nation's largest majority-Arab city with a pivotal final week

Donald Trump became the first Republican presidential candidate since 2000 to win the majority-Arab city of Dearborn, Michigan.

apnews.com

Basically, the Democrats fumbled the ball badly with Arab-Americans, so much so that they either voted for Stein, Trump, or just didn't vote at all. The Democrats probably need to quit taking certain voting blocs for granted.

 

[Danoff]

Basically, the Democrats fumbled the ball badly with Arab-Americans, so much so that they either voted for Stein, Trump, or just didn't vote at all. The Democrats probably need to quit taking certain voting blocs for granted.

No, people need to get their heads out of their rear ends.

 

[Blitz24]

Taking a stand and not voting for Harris if you are invested in the Middle East is the literal definition of an own goal.

 

[Joey D]

No, people need to get their heads out of their rear ends.

That's not going to happen, though. The Democrats did take voting blocs for granted, thinking that "we're not Trump" was enough to get them elected and that traditionally Democrat blocs would continue voting that way. Yes, "we're not Trump" should've been enough to get them elected, but many voters aren't smart enough to see that or simply don't want to see it. It will take a long time to correct that if it ever can be corrected. So, knowing that you're already dealing with people who can't be bothered to get informed, you need to strategize around that and figure out how to get votes.

I don't know how you get people to understand or care, but I'm guessing there's a group out there getting paid a lot of money who can probably figure that out. The Republicans managed to get people to understand and care about their cause, so it's possible. It'll probably be more difficult with Democrats since they tend to be less into fear-mongering, but it's still possible.

 

[Scaff]

My bad but I do personally have a problem with it.

Just to be clear, you have a problem with that, but you're cool with Trump?

I only ask given his language is often a lot, lot worse.

 

[Danoff]

That's not going to happen, though. The Democrats did take voting blocs for granted, thinking that "we're not Trump" was enough to get them elected

Nope. They had a platform. Even more of a platform than Trump (granted, that was a low bar).

Yes, "we're not Trump" should've been enough to get them elected

This is not what happened at all, even remotely. There was a campaign, it a had a platform, there were policy details. But Trump got a lot of attention from the media, and rightly from the campaign as well.

So, knowing that you're already dealing with people who can't be bothered to get informed, you need to strategize around that and figure out how to get votes.

They did. But people need to have their ears open.

 

[Kriptical]

Republicans sell their people emotions.

The details aren’t even all that important, as long as they evoke the desired response.

 

[Joey D]

Nope. They had a platform. Even more of a platform than Trump (granted, that was a low bar).

Yes, they had a platform, but they still took certain voting blocs for granted and lost those voting blocs as a result. They relied on "we're not Trump" to continue having those voting blocs keep voting for them. Meanwhile, Trump went to those voting blocs, sold them a pack of lies, and got their vote even if he's not going to do anything he said he was going to do.

This is not what happened at all, even remotely. There was a campaign, it a had a platform, there were policy details. But Trump got a lot of attention from the media, and rightly from the campaign as well.

Yes, there was a campaign, but a large portion of that campaign was "we're not Trump." In Michigan, almost all of the ads that were run focused on how bad Trump is without actually spelling out what Harris would do. Even the billboards and things like "I'm a two-time Trump voter and I'm voting for Harris." We had ads like "Trump gets up and looks at his list of enemies, Harris will get up and work for all Americans" and "Harris will welcome Republicans to the table." In addition, parading deeply conservative politicians like Liz Cheney and Trump's former staff so they could say how awful Trump was played into that strategy, too.

I'm sure it varied from state to state, but the main message in Michigan, at least, was "we're not Trump." It's a sound message that should've worked, but people didn't care.

Harris would've had a much easier time had Biden not sought reelection and there had been a primary. You would've heard up and down which each perspective candidate would bring to the table and there would've been way more time to get the message out there. Harris had a little over 3 months to develop a campaign and tell people about it. That's not enough time, which is why I think they relied so heavily on "we're not Trump." That was a straightforward message to put out there.

They did. But people need to have their ears open.

Obviously, they didn't do a good enough job reaching those voters. Yes, it was a limited timeline, but if you wanted to better understand Harris at all, you needed to go and research what she'd done as VP and what she was planning to do as a president. Most voters aren't going to research anything or, if they do, they're going to do the bare minimum to figure out where a candidate stands on their specific pet issue.

 

[TeamCZRRacing]

So you edited out the word 'god******' pretty god****** obvious

If he had edited the message, it would have said so on the message.

Evidence: This very message! Look at the bottom right.

 

[Jezza819]

Meanwhile, Trump went to those voting blocs, sold them a pack of lies, and got their vote even if he's not going to do anything he said he was going to do.

 

[TexRex]

If he had edited the message, it would have said so on the message.

Evidence: This very message! Look at the bottom right.

The images were edited to omit actual profanity. They were not edited to omit "goddamned" because that would be pussy ****.

 

[opelgt1969]

Just to be clear, you have a problem with that, but you're cool with Trump?

I only ask given his language is often a lot, lot worse.

.

 

[TexRex]

 

[Joey D]

 

[TexRex]

What's amazing is they appear to be pictures of screens on the phone screen pictured.

 

[buickgnx88]

The images were edited to omit actual profanity. They were not edited to omit "goddamned" because that would be pussy ****.