Kamala-Trump Debate

[Emerald]

19 hours ago, Hardkill said:

Biden won the presidency before in 2020 and back then he wasn't even as strong of a candidate as Harris is now. She also definitely a stronger and more popular candidate than Hillary Clinton was in 2016.

Trump isn't president and JD Vance is not the vice president. Therefore, they don't currently have the levers of power that could potentially be used to overturn an election. 

Also, the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022 further ensured that neither the Vice President nor a simple majority of members of both chambers of Congress can just overturn the election results.

In any case, that's why we need as many poll watchers and lawyers as possible to fight back against voter suppression and any other kind of cheating. It's a good thing that almost all of the swing states have been run by Democratic governors. Only two swing states are run by Republican governors who don't like Trump or MAGA at all. Pretty much every attorney general and secretary of state in every swing state is either a Democratic or anti-MAGA Republican as well.

Moreover, that's why we need to do whatever we can to help get out the vote as much as possible.

I agree that Kamala is stronger than Biden... and WAY stronger than Hilary. 

But keep in mind that Biden is a white guy and he was always polling better than Kamala is now. He was up on Trump +9% in the aggregate of polls during the 2020 election... but ended up only winning by 4% in the electoral college.

Hilary Clinton was thought to have a 90%+ chance of winning over Trump because she was up 6% on Trump. She won the popular vote but lost the electoral college.

In contrast, Kamala is up between 2-5% nationally (depending on the poll) over Trump. At no point has she polled as well as Biden or Hilary. 

But even though Trump isn't in power as the president, there are 70+ election officials in key swing states that are election deniers who will not certify the votes if Kamala wins.

This will ten lead to a situation where the election goes before the electoral college... which is full of Trump appointees. 

So, he may not really need to win the election to strong-arm his way back into the White House.

And I agree that we need tons of people watching the situation and ready to fight back.

[Emerald]

11 hours ago, ryandesreu said:

Wouldn't it be Harris certifying the results of the 2024 election this time as she is the sitting vp?

(Update to my post) I see that the vice can no longer overturn an election because of the Count Reform Act of 2022. 

There are 70+ election officials workings at the polls that are election deniers. And if they refuse to certify if Kamala wins, it will go to the Supreme Court... which is packed with Trump appointed justices.

[Hardkill]

3 hours ago, Emerald said:

I agree that Kamala is stronger than Biden... and WAY stronger than Hilary. 

But keep in mind that Biden is a white guy and he was always polling better than Kamala is now. He was up on Trump +9% in the aggregate of polls during the 2020 election... but ended up only winning by 4% in the electoral college.

Hilary Clinton was thought to have a 90%+ chance of winning over Trump because she was up 6% on Trump. She won the popular vote but lost the electoral college.

In contrast, Kamala is up between 2-5% nationally (depending on the poll) over Trump. At no point has she polled as well as Biden or Hilary. 

But even though Trump isn't in power as the president, there are 70+ election officials in key swing states that are election deniers who will not certify the votes if Kamala wins.

This will ten lead to a situation where the election goes before the electoral college... which is full of Trump appointees. 

So, he may not really need to win the election to strong-arm his way back into the White House.

And I agree that we need tons of people watching the situation and ready to fight back.

Well, Trump is now the very old has been whereas Harris is now the knew young fresh face. Plus, Trump is a convicted felon with tons of serious federal level indictments and was found guilty in a serious civil suit for having raped an innocent woman.

Also, Obama beat a white Republican man in a near landslide man in 2008 and then beat another white Republican man in 2012 decisively.

The main reason why Hillary lost in 2016 as because Bernie Sanders divided and weakened the Democratic Party which spoiled her chances of winning the presidency. Lichtman took this into account with the keys.

This time, the Democratic Party and have become very united and have become stronger than then a ever been in a generation. Lichtman has also accounted for this.

Again, we don’t know how accurate those polls are.

That being said, it still best to tell every out there to tell them that this is a very close race.

Also, Michael Moore, who has had a really excellent intuition for elections including having predicted that Trump would win in 2016, that Biden would win in 2020, and that Dems were going to win overall in the 2022 midterms, says that the energy for Harris/Walz is looking really good in Michigan and many other battleground states.

Btw, I am remember you saying that you live in Florida. What’s the enthusiasm for Harris-Walz been like in your area?

 

Edited September 16 by Hardkill

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, Hardkill said:

Well, Trump is now the very old has been whereas Harris is now the knew young fresh face. Plus, Trump is a convicted felon with tons of serious federal level indictments and was found guilty in a serious civil suit for having raped an innocent woman.

Also, Obama beat a white Republican man in a near landslide man in 2008 and then beat another white Republican man in 2012 decisively.

The main reason why Hillary lost in 2016 as because Bernie Sanders divided and weakened the Democratic Party which spoiled her chances of winning the presidency. Lichtman took this into account with the keys.

This time, the Democratic Party and have become very united and have become stronger than then a ever been in a generation. Lichtman has also accounted for this.

Again, we don’t know how accurate those polls are.

That being said, it still best to tell every out there to tell them that this is a very close race.

Also, Michael Moore, who has had a really excellent intuition for elections including having predicted that Trump would win in 2016, that Biden would win in 2020, and that Dems were going to win overall in the 2022 midterms, says that the energy for Harris/Walz is looking really good in Michigan and many other battleground states.

Btw, I am remember you saying that you live in Florida. What’s the enthusiasm for Harris-Walz been like in your area?

 

I don't know many people in my town on a political level. So, I'm not too sure. 

But I'm tentatively optimistic for the reasons you mentioned... except for the sexual assault charge. That's just one more thing that gets lost in the mix of all the other things he's done.

Also, Hilary lost because she didn't win over the Rust Belt because she made her campaign about herself and didn't promise change, while Trump was talking about bringing back manufacturing jobs and killing NAFTA and Making America Great Again. 

So, he positioned himself as a populist change candidate and she promised more of the same.

Plus, her personality gives off this fake liberal elitist deep state crone vibe that puts most people off. Like I voted for her, but I wasn't excited about it.

Yet, she was still more popular than Trump because she won the popular vote... which says something.

So, I don't think Bernie Sanders had much to do with her not winning as he was just running in the primary. If anything, he fired up the Democratic base and got more people involved in politics. I wasn't tuned into politics prior to Bernie. 

Yet again, I'm sure that the threat of Trump would have called me to politics if the possibility of a Bernie Sanders presidency hadn't already woken me up to civic engagement.

[Hardkill]

34 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I don't know many people in my town on a political level. So, I'm not too sure. 

But I'm tentatively optimistic for the reasons you mentioned... except for the sexual assault charge. That's just one more thing that gets lost in the mix of all the other things he's done.

Also, Hilary lost because she didn't win over the Rust Belt because she made her campaign about herself and didn't promise change, while Trump was talking about bringing back manufacturing jobs and killing NAFTA and Making America Great Again. 

So, he positioned himself as a populist change candidate and she promised more of the same.

Plus, her personality gives off this fake liberal elitist deep state crone vibe that puts most people off. Like I voted for her, but I wasn't excited about it.

Yet, she was still more popular than Trump because she won the popular vote... which says something.

So, I don't think Bernie Sanders had much to do with her not winning as he was just running in the primary. If anything, he fired up the Democratic base and got more people involved in politics. I wasn't tuned into politics prior to Bernie. 

Yet again, I'm sure that the threat of Trump would have called me to politics if the possibility of a Bernie Sanders presidency hadn't already woken me up to civic engagement.

Part of why Hillary lost is because of those reasons you mentioned.

However, what's more important to understand is that Sanders caused a lot of young people, liberals, and disaffected moderates and independent throughout the country to not want to vote for her or just vote third party.

A lot of them thought the Democratic party rigged the nomination process against Sanders and that the whole Democratic was in such disarray which was really not a good look. He caused such serious discontent with the governance of the Democratic party. 

Consequently, too many voters throughout the country thought that Obama, Hillary, and the entire Democratic party let the country down. Therefore, there were more people in those Rust Belt states she lost who decided that it was time to vote the Democrats out of the White House and elect Trump and the GOP in.

[ici]

Kek 

 

[Joshe]

To see Springfield’s Haitian problem, go to timestamp 5:08. Vance was talking about this some while ago, with numbers and charts. If the information contained in this video goes mainstream—which it’s not far from doing, if it hasn’t already—the last thing that will be on people’s minds is lies about pets. It was never about the pets. This will be devastating for Kamala if it goes mainstream. I suspect the Rs will turn the story of the 95lb white lady who had Haitian men tossing mattresses in her yard and yelling at her in Haitian, into an advertisement… if they were smart.

It looks like this might be one of the most effective anti-immigrant campaigns ever. Vancǝ is at the heart of it. And who owns Vancǝ? That apǝx prǝdator billionairǝ who studies manipulating the masses (Pǝtǝr Thiǝl, outspoken disciple of Rǝnǝ Girard).

Also, one of their main complaints is Haitians can't drive for shit and they're killing people on the road. I lived in Key West in a jam packed trailer park where Haitians made up the majority. Their driving was a common complaint there as well. To say they aren't easy to deal with is an understatement. They usually can't speak much English and they're more often than not boisterous, arrogant, uncooperative, and unwilling to admit wrongdoing. If they wake you up in the middle of the night with loud music or partying, it's your fault. I'm not racist or anti-immigrant but it was annoying, mostly due to their imposing themselves without concern for others. Of course, it's a spectrum—some are more respectful than others, but the majority, IME, were problematic. 

This is an effective anti-immigrant campaign. What state neighbors Ohio? This problem is less than a 3-hour road trip away from Pennsylvania.

Edited September 16 by Joshe

[ryandesreu]

In the 2020 election, the court repeatedly declined to intervene in ways that would have overturned the election results despite legal challenges from Trump’s team. Even justices considered ideologically aligned with Trump followed legal precedent rather than personal or political interests. @Emerald

Edited September 16 by ryandesreu

[El Zapato]

2 hours ago, Joshe said:

To see Springfield’s Haitian problem, go to timestamp 5:08. Vance was talking about this some while ago, with numbers and charts. If the information contained in this video goes mainstream—which it’s not far from doing, if it hasn’t already—the last thing that will be on people’s minds is lies about pets. It was never about the pets. This will be devastating for Kamala if it goes mainstream. I suspect the Rs will turn the story of the 95lb white lady who had Haitian men tossing mattresses in her yard and yelling at her in Haitian, into an advertisement… if they were smart.

It looks like this might be one of the most effective anti-immigrant campaigns ever. Vancǝ is at the heart of it. And who owns Vancǝ? That apǝx prǝdator billionairǝ who studies manipulating the masses (Pǝtǝr Thiǝl, outspoken disciple of Rǝnǝ Girard).

Also, one of their main complaints is Haitians can't drive for shit and they're killing people on the road. I lived in Key West in a jam packed trailer park where Haitians made up the majority. Their driving was a common complaint there as well. To say they aren't easy to deal with is an understatement. They usually can't speak much English and they're more often than not boisterous, arrogant, uncooperative, and unwilling to admit wrongdoing. If they wake you up in the middle of the night with loud music or partying, it's your fault. I'm not racist or anti-immigrant but it was annoying, mostly due to their imposing themselves without concern for others. Of course, it's a spectrum—some are more respectful than others, but the majority, IME, were problematic. 

This is an effective anti-immigrant campaign. What state neighbors Ohio? This problem is less than a 3-hour road trip away from Pennsylvania.

I would investigate the background of the lady in question...She sounds rational but can we be sure there is no underlying agenda.  I think you can trust anything that the right puts up is 99% fabrication... my statement is not conjecture, it is a universal invariant.

Edited September 16 by El Zapato

[Joshe]

41 minutes ago, El Zapato said:

I would investigate the background of the lady in question...She sounds rational but can we be sure there is no underlying agenda.  I think you can trust anything that the right puts up is 99% fabrication... my statement is not conjecture, it is a universal invariant.

I don't think it would matter much. Even if she was outed as a shill, people would still be aware of the problem, which is the point. And left-wing media has done and continues to do the majority of the work 😆 They think they're hitting the Rs good here by showing how they peddle in lies. lol. Everyone should halt reporting on this ASAP. But it's too late, it's out now. It will be a centerpiece moving forward.

Prediction: At least 2-4 weeks before the election, the Trump campaign will flood the media landscape with ads highlighting Springfield's immigration problem and it will be their most effective effort. 

Edited September 16 by Joshe

[What Am I]

@Joshe it almost seems like you're asking how this can best be swept under the rug to avoid anyone outside of Springfield finding out. If it's an issue of this magnitude, wouldn't it be appropriate for those who are zealously pro-immigration to answer for the situation?

[Joshe]

@What Am I I'm simply speculating on what I think is most likely going on, and if it's true, it is detrimental to my desired outcome. To what degree, I can't say, but I suspect it will be highly effective and if the race is as close as many people think, it is concerning. 

The overzealous immigration should be looked at, as it's obviously causing problems, but when the house is on fire, you don't go and replace the smoke detector batteries... you put the fire out. You can maintain the smoke alarms after the fire is out. Some problems are more manageable than others. Another Trump term could wind us up in a problem far worse than solving for immigration. 

Edited September 16 by Joshe

[What Am I]

2 minutes ago, Joshe said:

@What Am I I'm simply speculating on what I think is most likely going on, and if it's true, it is detrimental to my desired outcome. To what degree, I can't say, but I suspect it will be highly effective and if the race is as close as many people think, it is concerning.

That's a fine line to walk imo. It's a purposeful hiding of the truth to put yourself in an advantageous position. I don't think it's that many steps removed from hoping Trump gets assassinated, as both can be considered immoral acts, depending on the context.

4 minutes ago, Joshe said:

The overzealous immigration should be looked at, as it's obviously causing problems, but when the house is on fire, you don't go and swap out the smoke detector batteries... you put the fire out. You can maintain the smoke alarms after the fire is out. Some problems are more manageable than others. Another Trump term could wind us up in a problem far worse than solving for immigration.

You could be right, but it's up to each informed voter to decide. The temptation will always be there to "help" the voter make the "right" decision, but when pushed too far, that's a betrayal of the democracy you're hoping to maintain.

Not trying to come at you aggressively, just pointing out what I'm seeing. I'm not really that informed on the issue. How did 20k Haitian immigrants even end up in this small town?

[Fearey]

13 minutes ago, What Am I said:

That's a fine line to walk imo. It's a purposeful hiding of the truth to put yourself in an advantageous position. I don't think it's that many steps removed from hoping Trump gets assassinated, as both can be considered immoral acts, depending on the context.

You could be right, but it's up to each informed voter to decide. The temptation will always be there to "help" the voter make the "right" decision, but when pushed too far, that's a betrayal of the democracy you're hoping to maintain.

Not trying to come at you aggressively, just pointing out what I'm seeing. I'm not really that informed on the issue. How did 20k Haitian immigrants even end up in this small town?

If you consider that he committed the gravest of treason when he tried to overturn a democratically held election, maybe it's not so immoral after all to wish for his death. For all we know he might've been put on death row if he didn't receive immunity from the supreme court.

[El Zapato]

@Fearey Well, if we want to look at recent developments from a little different perspective, I would not hesitate to say the Orange one has demonic coverage.  It will play out... For Lews Therin:  The Wheel Weaves what the Wheel Wills...  

Edited September 16 by El Zapato

[Joshe]

34 minutes ago, What Am I said:

That's a fine line to walk imo. It's a purposeful hiding of the truth to put yourself in an advantageous position. I don't think it's that many steps removed from hoping Trump gets assassinated, as both can be considered immoral acts, depending on the context.

I can see how you'd think my approach is morally reprehensible, e.g., not the way people should be, but I see your approach as suboptimal. I prefer your approach, but stakes are currently too high to forgo strategic intervention. 

34 minutes ago, What Am I said:

You could be right, but it's up to each informed voter to decide. The temptation will always be there to "help" the voter make the "right" decision, but when pushed too far, that's a betrayal of the democracy you're hoping to maintain.

I don't believe each voter is sufficiently informed or developed enough to avoid potential catastrophe. When the stakes are low, sure, let the people fuck around, but when the life of the system is in danger, I'm okay with the people being manipulated for their own benefit. You can call that fucked up but I call it caring about the system they comprise. Ideally, people would be intelligent enough to discern for themselves what is right, but they simply aren't. There should be no question that someone who tried to steal the 2020 election is disqualified from consideration for the 2024 election... but that's not the case... is it? If it were the case, I'd probably favor your approach. 

34 minutes ago, What Am I said:

Not trying to come at you aggressively, just pointing out what I'm seeing. I'm not really that informed on the issue. How did 20k Haitian immigrants even end up in this small town?

I don't perceive it as aggressive. I appreciate the feedback! I'm not super informed either.

"How" isn't as important to me as "why". The why justifies/informs the how. If you want to know who is to blame, you can't trace that back the way I assume you think you can. I assume you think you can directly trace it back to Democrats, but it's not that simple. When you see people in dire straights and you can afford to help them, you might open your doors to them, and years later, they cause problems you didn't foresee or don't know how to handle. Many right-leaning people like to point the finger and call the Dems stupid pieces of shit because they wanted to help people—and themselves too—but this positionality exists within a very narrow perspective. Much bigger problems exist atm.

It's currently possible that an absolute lunatic could take over our government. We can deal with immigration once the very structure of the system is safe. 

Edited September 16 by Joshe

[What Am I]

7 minutes ago, Fearey said:

If you consider that he committed the gravest of treason when he tried to overturn a democratically held election, maybe it's not so immoral after all to wish for his death. For all we know he might've been put on death row if he didn't receive immunity from the supreme court.

I do appreciate you being honest about your opinion. I imagine there's many who wish they could extrajudicially end the life of Trump, but they're just not saying it out loud for any number of reasons. I think it's quite shortsighted though, and doesn't take into account what would happen after. Not to mention, I still believe it'd be immoral when performed in this way.

[What Am I]

2 minutes ago, Joshe said:

I can see how you'd think my approach is morally reprehensible, e.g., not the way people should be, but I see your approach as suboptimal. I prefer your approach, but stakes are currently too high to forgo strategic intervention. 

Don't you think that was the same justification going through the mind of the bizarre fella who recently shot at Trump? And MAGA will say the left have struck such fear into their followers, they'd be willing to break the rules and stop him at all costs. Kind of hard to argue it when that sounds like what you're saying lol. When taken to the extreme, couldn't that line of reasoning justify all manner of atrocities?

I won't push back too much though, as it sounds like we agree this isn't the ideal behavior. Just a difference of opinion on what's currently justified.

11 minutes ago, Joshe said:

"How" isn't as important to me as "why". The why justifies/informs the how. If you want to know who is to blame, you can't trace that back the way I assume you think you can. I assume you think you can directly trace it back to Democrats, but it's not that simple. When you see people in dire straights and you can afford to help them, you might open your doors to them, and years later, they cause problems you didn't foresee or don't know how to handle. Many right-leaning people like to point the finger and call the Dems stupid pieces of shit because they wanted to help people—and themselves too—but this positionality exists within a very narrow perspective. Much bigger problems exist atm.

I'm just wondering about this particular case. Like, who signed off on a town of 60k receiving an influx of 20k? Did they really all need to go to this single small location? Seems like an issue that anyone could have predicted.

[Joshe]

29 minutes ago, What Am I said:

When taken to the extreme, couldn't that line of reasoning justify all manner of atrocities?

Yes. I would put a bullet in baby Hitler's brain if given the chance. 100%. And I would likely advocate for the same to someone who did the same to an innocent baby. I'm unapologetically against what I perceive as detrimental to good, aka (evil), and have not yet figured out if it's always or usually best to turn the other cheek. The wise ones say this, but I can't see it yet.

29 minutes ago, What Am I said:

I'm just wondering about this particular case. Like, who signed off on a town of 60k receiving an influx of 20k? Did they really all need to go to this single small location? Seems like an issue that anyone could have predicted.

Springfield Ohio is a Republican town, in a Republican county, in a Republican state. My guess is the Republicans signed off on it.

Edited September 16 by Joshe

[El Zapato]

@What Am I Even Jesus metaphorically maintained there is a limit to turning cheeks.  We all realize the butt will turn red after enough slapping.  I think it was Kant who believed that one could watch one kill another without any sense of responsibility to intervene.  I disagree, there is a point of practicality where the rubber hits the road and as human beings, we have to react.