The Race For 2024

[Colonel Sanders]

I was constantly told that this election was going to be the most important election in the history of this great nation, that democracy is on the line, we must save democracy!!!!11!!!11!!!!

And then someone told a silly joke about Puerto Rico four days ago and now we must focus on bad comedians.

Because cackling Kamal is clueless and offers nothing!!

 

[TSwizzle]

I get it, you want to vote for a guy that claims voter fraud cost him the 2020 election but forgot to actually contest the election. I can see how you can relate to such logic.

You're doing it again. Fabricating a logic puzzle that only you can follow.

 

[TomC]

I get it, you want to vote for a guy that claims voter fraud cost him the 2020 election but forgot to actually contest the election. I can see how you can relate to such logic.

You're doing it again. Fabricating a logic puzzle that only you can follow.

I can follow it.
Trump got his ass kicked in the 2020 election then lied about it, but didn't go to court and present any reason for sensible people to consider the possibility that he "won" the election process.
Tom

 

[bilby]

Do you attribute this to upper-class Bangkokians (Bangkokers? Bankokites?)

I believe the correct demonym is "Kok-Bangers"

 

[bilby]

Harris has repeatedly shown she is incapable of answering a question, even a simple question on a subject that as the Americans would say "is in her wheelhouse". She is clueless a politician.

FTFY.

Not answering questions is a key skill for politicians.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I get it, you want to vote for a guy that claims voter fraud cost him the 2020 election but forgot to actually contest the election. I can see how you can relate to such logic.

You're doing it again. Fabricating a logic puzzle that only you can follow.

That it puzzles you confirms it.

 

[TSwizzle]

I get it, you want to vote for a guy that claims voter fraud cost him the 2020 election but forgot to actually contest the election. I can see how you can relate to such logic.

You're doing it again. Fabricating a logic puzzle that only you can follow.

That it puzzles you confirms it.

Well there is no logic in it so there is that. It's just silly made up shit that wastes bandwidth.

 

[thebeave]

Cackling Kamala, incapable of answering a question;



Nora: You have not been clear on what restrictions you would support re abortion.
Cackling Kamala: blather about Roe v Wade
Nora: So you do support restrictions after viability?
Cackling Kamala: Roe v Wade
Nora: (ffs will you answer the question dammit!) Yes but Roe v Wade had restrictions
Cackling Kamal; TRUMP!! TRUMP!! TRUMP!!

Harris is clueless, she offers nothing.

"Roe v Wade" is a perfectly good answer.

I think for most candidates, that answer would be sufficient. But Kamala has a history of avoiding answers directly and being detailed. Her bread & butter on this campaign has been abortion rights, so presumably, she is educated and knowledgable in this subject matter. It was a golden opportunity for her to be succinct, clear and show her chops. And yet she gave a bland, generic answer that you could expect any clueless politician to fall back on. And she doubled down on it. It does make you wonder if she really knows what's in Roe v. Wade. Even Nora O'Donnell was getting frustrated with her evasiveness and she is on Kamala's side!

Nailing things down during a political campaign can be a dangerous tactic that can be used against you.

Is there something in particular that you think she didn't want to nail down in that interview? If so, what?

 

[ZiprHead]

I was constantly told that this election was going to be the most important election in the history of this great nation, that democracy is on the line, we must save democracy!!!!11!!!11!!!!

And then someone told a silly joke about Puerto Rico four days ago and now we must focus on bad comedians.

Because cackling Kamal is clueless and offers nothing!!

That the campaign hired the (questionable) comedian and approved the jokes is another reason why Trump is unfit for office.

 

[ZiprHead]

That's not what the democrat campaign has been about. Which I of course ignore so I am good.

That doesn't make any sense. You ignore the campaign but think you know what it's about. Do all MAGAts say such stupid things.

 

[ZiprHead]

Cackling Kamala, incapable of answering a question;



Nora: You have not been clear on what restrictions you would support re abortion.
Cackling Kamala: blather about Roe v Wade
Nora: So you do support restrictions after viability?
Cackling Kamala: Roe v Wade
Nora: (ffs will you answer the question dammit!) Yes but Roe v Wade had restrictions
Cackling Kamal; TRUMP!! TRUMP!! TRUMP!!

Harris is clueless, she offers nothing.

"Roe v Wade" is a perfectly good answer.

I think for most candidates, that answer would be sufficient. But Kamala has a history of avoiding answers directly and being detailed. Her bread & butter on this campaign has been abortion rights, so presumably, she is educated and knowledgable in this subject matter. It was a golden opportunity for her to be succinct, clear and show her chops. And yet she gave a bland, generic answer that you could expect any clueless politician to fall back on. And she doubled down on it. It does make you wonder if she really knows what's in Roe v. Wade. Even Nora O'Donnell was getting frustrated with her evasiveness and she is on Kamala's side!

Nailing things down during a political campaign can be a dangerous tactic that can be used against you.

Is there something in particular that you think she didn't want to nail down in that interview? If so, what?

I haven't watched the interview and don't intend to. Was my statement incorrect in some way?

 

[thebeave]

Cackling Kamala, incapable of answering a question;



Nora: You have not been clear on what restrictions you would support re abortion.
Cackling Kamala: blather about Roe v Wade
Nora: So you do support restrictions after viability?
Cackling Kamala: Roe v Wade
Nora: (ffs will you answer the question dammit!) Yes but Roe v Wade had restrictions
Cackling Kamal; TRUMP!! TRUMP!! TRUMP!!

Harris is clueless, she offers nothing.

"Roe v Wade" is a perfectly good answer.

I think for most candidates, that answer would be sufficient. But Kamala has a history of avoiding answers directly and being detailed. Her bread & butter on this campaign has been abortion rights, so presumably, she is educated and knowledgable in this subject matter. It was a golden opportunity for her to be succinct, clear and show her chops. And yet she gave a bland, generic answer that you could expect any clueless politician to fall back on. And she doubled down on it. It does make you wonder if she really knows what's in Roe v. Wade. Even Nora O'Donnell was getting frustrated with her evasiveness and she is on Kamala's side!

Nailing things down during a political campaign can be a dangerous tactic that can be used against you.

Is there something in particular that you think she didn't want to nail down in that interview? If so, what?

I haven't watched the interview and don't intend to. Was my statement incorrect in some way?

No, I agree generally. There's usually something specific they are trying to avoid saying. I'm just wondering what it is. I guess if you didn't watch and don't intend to, I'm wasting my time.

 

[Derec]

No, it's completely inappropriate in the circumstance and almost a threat. And to accept that it was a joke is just fucking pathetic.

It may be inappropriate to the setting, but it is nowhere near to being a threat. It was clearly a reference to Hezbollah pagers exploding all over Lebanon last month. It is insinuating the other person may be a Hezbollah member or ally (like that Iranian ambassador whose pager also exploded). It has the same flavor as for example asking MAGAs where they were on 1/6, insinuating that they might have been in the Capitol.
And it is certainly not "racist" because the insinuation is made because of Mehdi's anti-Israel views, and not because of his race.

 

[Derec]

What does "win" mean in that sentence?

It means to get elected president using the rules in place, not rules as you wish them to be.
It is the same in other contexts. If a team wins the World Series, they do so by winning more games than the other team, not more aggregate runs for example.

Are you aware that Hillary Clinton got millions more votes than he did?
Tom

That and about $5 will get her a coffee at Starbucks.
US elections are not run that way. They are run on a state-by-state basis.
There are also other problems with comparing popular vote.

1. Unlike Biden, Hillary did not even win the majority of the vote but only 48.2%. In a system like France's, there would be a runoff election which would be unpredictable.
2. Campaigns are run with EC rules in mind. That means a lot of focus on battleground states, and little attention paid to safe states other than for fundraising. A popular vote election would be run very differently, and thus the vote totals would be different.
   That is the same as with World Series. If it was played based on aggregate runs rather than games won, strategies used by both teams would be very different, as would the scores.
3. Under popular vote with a runoff, minor parties would almost certainly get more votes in the first round as there is no longer the spoiler effect in force. Given that both major candidates were very unpopular, I doubt either one would have cracked 40% in the first round.

 

[Derec]

We don't elect presidents, that's my point. They are appointed by state legislatures.

No, they aren't.

Saying that a candidate "won" the election when they were 2nd place in the election, but got appointed anyways, gives them a lot of credibility that they don't really have.

But Trump came first in that election. 304 to her 227.
I have already explained in my post above why it is a fallacy to compare nationwide popular vote when that is not how the elections are run.

 

[Derec]

I am afraid he might win but I think he has shoot himself in the foot pretty badly recently with Hispanic voters, particularly those of Puerto Rican heritage. Hopefully that will be enough.

He definitely did, and it wasn't even a good joke.

 

[Patooka]

I was constantly told that this election was going to be the most important election in the history of this great nation, that democracy is on the line, we must save democracy!!!!11!!!11!!!!

And then someone told a silly joke about Puerto Rico four days ago and now we must focus on bad comedians.

Because cackling Kamal is clueless and offers nothing!!

Please cry harder. It really is music to my ears

 

[southernhybrid]

https://www.semafor.com/article/10/31/2024/why-the-economist-is-endorsing-kamala-harris-in-2024

The Economist is taking advantage of the space vacated by US news outlets including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and USA Today, and endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election.

“It is hard to imagine Ms. Harris being a stellar president, though people can surprise you. But you cannot imagine her bringing about a catastrophe,” The Economist writes, in an essay addressed at reluctant, Economist-reading Trump supporters who are “deluding themselves” about the economic and national security dangers of a Trump presidency. “Presidents do not have to be saints and we hope a second Trump presidency would avoid disaster. But Mr. Trump poses an unacceptable risk to America and the world.”

In an interview on Wednesday, the US editor of the British publication, John Prideaux, said that although the publication had already planned on endorsing a candidate, recent decisions by the Post and LA Times not to endorse had also prompted The Economist to consider why the publication was endorsing, and the value it provided to its readers.

Most economists are endorsing Harris, but this magazine's endorsement has been a big of a surprise, considering it doesn't usually endorse candidates. I'd like the article from the magazine, but I'm not a subscriber.

 

[Elixir]

I get it, you want to vote for a guy that claims voter fraud cost him the 2020 election but forgot to actually contest the election. I can see how you can relate to such logic.

You're doing it again. Fabricating a logic puzzle that only you can follow.

I’m having no problem following it. Hardly a puzzle - unless other … uh, challenges are involved.
It probably doesn’t make any sense to Swiz that half of Trump’s Cabinet are warning that he is a dangerous moron.

 

[TSwizzle]

He definitely did, and it wasn't even a good joke.

And that is why it landed flat.

It certainly was a strange choice of comedian for a political rally. But we do live in strange times.