US Presidential Election 2024 - Trump vs Harris - Vote Hard with a Vengence

[dimsum]

Lesser hey? So getting rid of electoral college, packing the supreme court, open borders, weakened elections , censorship, abuse of justice system, attacks on 2A... those are all you're willing to accept over the other guy?

Uh, last I checked, the SCOTUS had an inject of conservative members between 2016-2020.

 

[KevinB]

Lesser hey? So getting rid of electoral college, packing the supreme court, open borders, weakened elections , censorship, abuse of justice system, attacks on 2A... those are all you're willing to accept over the other guy?

So lets look at those issues:
Who exactly put up fake electors?
Supreme Court: composition is held by conservative majority
Open Borders - not exactly a new issue
Weakened Elections - I'm going to put the primary blame on DJT for that one
Censorship: Clearly you don't get out much -- down here the Fringe Right is lot more censorship tolerant
Abuse of the Justice System: DJT hasn't even been charged with half the illegal shit he did, and he's already a convicted felon. Which I think most sentient people would agree probably should be an immediate exclusion.
Attacks on the 2nd Amendment: Trump made an executive order that the USSC struck down... Democrats aren't alone on their attacks of the 2A, as Bush Sr proved.

At the end of the day, I can accept "the other guy" because we have a strong system of government with checks and balances. We cannot accept Trump 47 as he would reduce those, and bring this country to a shadow of it's former self.

 

[QV]

So lets look at those issues:
Who exactly put up fake electors?
Supreme Court: composition is held by conservative majority
Open Borders - not exactly a new issue
Weakened Elections - I'm going to put the primary blame on DJT for that one
Censorship: Clearly you don't get out much -- down here the Fringe Right is lot more censorship tolerant
Abuse of the Justice System: DJT hasn't even been charged with half the illegal shit he did, and he's already a convicted felon. Which I think most sentient people would agree probably should be an immediate exclusion.
Attacks on the 2nd Amendment: Trump made an executive order that the USSC struck down... Democrats aren't alone on their attacks of the 2A, as Bush Sr proved.

At the end of the day, I can accept "the other guy" because we have a strong system of government with checks and balances. We cannot accept Trump 47 as he would reduce those, and bring this country to a shadow of it's former self.

So Trump 47 would be like Trump 45 then? The end of the Republic?

One can argue about elections all day long but don't ignore the Democrats attempts at changing the outcome over the years. DJT was only playing by that same playbook. The current issues with respect to election integrity center around the voter ID issue, mass immigration, mass mail in ballots, and a system that is not easily auditable. Taking Trump out of context on his "find the votes" statement is a distraction.

Borders were/are a disaster under Obama and Biden, Trump minimized that to the extent possible while being undermined by bureaucrats still in the job. The number of illegals going in under all three administrations demonstrate this.

Only the DNC is pushing for control of media/social media etc. Musk's take over of Twitter brought government sponsored influence and censorship to light, at least on that platform.

As to what DJT has been charged with, we'd have to play whataboutism... and nobody here likes to compare how prominent democrat candidates have been given a pass while DJT has been pursued with novel applications of law never used before.

Harris/Walz are open about what they want to do about guns in the US (executive order to take guns).

Harris/Walz are open about their position on the electoral college (get rid of it).

At the end of the day, DJT is a far less dangerous candidate to individual freedoms. The current democrat side wants to tear down those protections.

 

[Quirky]

It's kind of fun watching Kamala sink in popularity every time she opens her mouth. It's almost like she has no single person on her team in charge of media coaching her, or she just lacks competence and has no real plan other than being Biden 2.0.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Censorship: Clearly you don't get out much -- down here the Fringe Right is lot more censorship tolerant

That's not my impression, but censorship is difficult to quantify. It exists throughout the political spectrum depending on topic and political alignment.

However, if as you assert it's a feature of the "fringe" on the right, it's easy to observe that on the left it's right there in the middle of mainstream discourse among the major media and politicians - not the "fringe" left. The same is observable with the real and proposed erosions of "democratic institutions". Progressives talk openly about what they see as deficiencies in the constitutional and social fabric of the US, and the changes they'd make. Depending on who is writing the op-ed, the US is one trifecta election (presidency, House, Senate) away from abolishment of the legislative filibuster in the Senate as the first step in a package of reforms to alter the courts, electoral processes, immigration policy, and so on - all to favour Democratic ends.

I see Trump has improved by R+0.5 over Harris in the RCP battleground average in the last few days. If that holds or worsens for Harris, I anticipate a renewed flood of things everyone "just knows", but don't hold up under common sense examination.

 

[QV]

Uh, last I checked, the SCOTUS had an inject of conservative members between 2016-2020.

Your answer tells me you haven't followed the discourse on this in the US and what "packing" the court means.

 

[Remius]

So Trump 47 would be like Trump 45 then? The end of the Republic?

End? No. Damage? Yes.

One can argue about elections all day long but don't ignore the Democrats attempts at changing the outcome over the years. DJT was only playing by that same playbook. The current issues with respect to election integrity center around the voter ID issue, mass immigration, mass mail in ballots, and a system that is not easily auditable. Taking Trump out of context on his "find the votes" statement is a distraction.

No one should take anything he says out of context. I firmly believe he means exactly what he says. His follow through though is a mixed bag.

Borders were/are a disaster under Obama and Biden, Trump minimized that to the extent possible while being undermined by bureaucrats still in the job. The number of illegals going in under all three administrations demonstrate this.

Dimsum posted a great video a while back. It goes onto say that no one administration will able to “fix” the border issue and it will essentially stabilise in 10 years or so once the effects of the Central American free trade agreement raises the quality of life in those area just as it did with Mexico under NAFTA. Makes for great politics though.

Only the DNC is pushing for control of media/social media etc. Musk's take over of Twitter brought government sponsored influence and censorship to light, at least on that platform.

Thinking the GOP isn’t trying to influence social media in the same way is naive.

As to what DJT has been charged with, we'd have to play whataboutism... and nobody here likes to compare how prominent democrat candidates have been given a pass while DJT has been pursued with novel applications of law never used before.

You just played whataboutism in that statement.

Harris/Walz are open about what they want to do about guns in the US (executive order to take guns).

Be specific. It isn’t about all guns.

Harris/Walz are open about their position on the electoral college (get rid of it).

At the end of the day, DJT is a far less dangerous candidate to individual freedoms. The current democrat side wants to tear down those protections.

What does the electoral college protect exactly? Seems like a Byzantine system. Considering the laments on the right about only certain areas or people deciding elections as opposed to the will of the majority or the plurality that this would be something embraced by those wanting electoral reform.

As to your last statement, DJT enabled the biggest restriction to individual freedoms in living memory.

 

[Brad Sallows]

End? No. Damage? Yes.

What damage? The assertion would be more impressive if people could point to specific instances that aren't merely speculation.

What does the electoral college protect exactly?

A system of republican government, as opposed to majoritarian democracy. In a sense, the US is essentially "anti-democratic".

 

[QV]

End? No. Damage? Yes. Speculation. The majority of Americans believe they were better off under 45 then now.

No one should take anything he says out of context. I firmly believe he means exactly what he says. His follow through though is a mixed bag.

Dimsum posted a great video a while back. It goes onto say that no one administration will able to “fix” the border issue and it will essentially stabilise in 10 years or so once the effects of the Central American free trade agreement raises the quality of life in those area just as it did with Mexico under NAFTA. Makes for great politics though. So, uncontrolled borders for about 10 more years and then everything should be fine.? I wonder how many other countries would be good with that scenario? Do you support no border integrity? How have other countries managed to safeguard their borders? This is not insurmountable.

Thinking the GOP isn’t trying to influence social media in the same way is naive. Influencing social media is one thing, censorship is another.

You just played whataboutism in that statement. I enjoy reminding people of their hypocrisy.

Be specific. It isn’t about all guns. Provide me a list of firearms that you think should be prohibited by the next administration and we'll discuss. I say no change to status quo, what do you say?

What does the electoral college protect exactly? Seems like a Byzantine system. Considering the laments on the right about only certain areas or people deciding elections as opposed to the will of the majority or the plurality that this would be something embraced by those wanting electoral reform. The US of A is arguably the greatest country to ever exist. This is in large part due to it's founding principles and the Constitution. The electoral college is an important part of that. One side wants to tear that down.

As to your last statement, DJT enabled the biggest restriction to individual freedoms in living memory. If you're referring to COVID, then aren't you quite happy about that? IIRC you are quite pro-vax, pro-lockdown etc. During the first term 45 made a critical mistake; he believed senior bureaucrats were by and large non-partisian public servants. We've all seen what obstructive tendencies these political appointees and senior bureaucrats with leftist or deep state ideologies can accomplish when they slow walk or actively resist the elected government's polices (Canada is no different). I doubt Trump 47 will make that mistake twice and there will be a far more active "drain the swamp" campaign, should he win.

 

[KevinB]

So Trump 47 would be like Trump 45 then? The end of the Republic?

Worse as I believe Trump suffered some sort of mental breakdown after the results of the 2020 Election.

One can argue about elections all day long but don't ignore the Democrats attempts at changing the outcome over the years. DJT was only playing by that same playbook. The current issues with respect to election integrity center around the voter ID issue, mass immigration, mass mail in ballots, and a system that is not easily auditable. Taking Trump out of context on his "find the votes" statement is a distraction.

I have only my own state to reference, and we have Real ID requirements for voting — furthermore in issues where a Mail in Vote is recorded and a live person shows up - the mail in vote is stricken. Our county has cleaned up its voter records - based on the audits performed after the last Presidential election I would say that while the system isn’t infallible, it’s about as good as it gets.

If you have listened to the various recordings of Former President Trump, the “find the votes” was most definitely not taken oit of context in at least some of those recordings.

Borders were/are a disaster under Obama and Biden, Trump minimized that to the extent possible while being undermined by bureaucrats still in the job. The number of illegals going in under all three administrations demonstrate this.

I would say that is a feature not a bug of America being a place people want to live.

Only the DNC is pushing for control of media/social media etc. Musk's take over of Twitter brought government sponsored influence and censorship to light, at least on that platform.

As to what DJT has been charged with, we'd have to play whataboutism... and nobody here likes to compare how prominent democrat candidates have been given a pass while DJT has been pursued with novel applications of law never used before.

I must have missed all the previous defeated incumbent Presidents making efforts to subvert the election or retaining TS SCI Nuclear secrets, CONPLANS and Human Int home.

DJT decided not to push for HRC to be prosecuted based on opinions from the FBI and DoJ, I think that was a mistake - but…

Harris/Walz are open about what they want to do about guns in the US (executive order to take guns).

Fortunately we have a USSC that understands that the President has zero authority to do that. However I am concerned as to what the USSC also decided that a President is immune too.

Harris/Walz are open about their position on the electoral college (get rid of it).

Doesn’t matter what they think. They don’t have the ability to change the system, nor to add more USSC judges or add more States to the Union. If you look at what is required to make Amendments to our Constitution, Canada is more likely to get changes through…

At the end of the day, DJT is a far less dangerous candidate to individual freedoms. The current democrat side wants to tear down those protections.

For all the doom and gloom about that, the only one who has made an effort to cause a civil war at this point seems to be DJT.

 

[Remius]

@QV


1. How people feel is different from how they are. But my answer wasn’t in regards to that. So not sure what your rebuttal is supposed to do here.

2. On borders, essentially yes. Mexican migrants slowed immensely since NAFTA. There will be border problems despite what anyone does. You will have to be more specific about how some countries manage their borders effectively. We need a point of comparison that is , well comparable.

3. On censorship, one only has to see the immense amount of book banning in schools and libraries by GOP types. On social media, musk has a spotted history of banning and controlling the message, the point is that it isn’t just the democrats doing it. My point still stands.

4. Why would provide you a list of guns I think should be banned? You are moving the goal post from your statement on what Harris Waltz will do. I asked for specifics as it isn’t a ban on all guns as you seemed to imply.

5. Again, what right is being taken away by electoral reform? You are lumping that in with a tear down of rights. What right is being torn down by that proposal?

5. COVID? No. I am talking about Roe vs Wade.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The dissolution of R v W was a SCOTUS decision that simply put the rules back in the individual state control, where it belongs. Trump had SFA to do with the decision. It being the biggest restriction to individual freedoms in recent memory is both laughable, partisan and disingenuous.

 

[KevinB]

The dissolution of R v W was a SCOTUS decision that simply put the rules back in the individual state control, where it belongs. Trump had SFA to do with the decision. It being the biggest restriction to individual freedoms in recent memory is both laughable, partisan and disingenuous.

The issue that I see (and as someone who didn’t like Roe v Wade) is that removal of that resulted in some pretty drastic changes, back to laws on the books before R v W, some of which are ethically questionable given medical and physiological knowledge we had today.

I personally believe life begins at conception, however I don’t think that abortion should be forbidden for cases of rape, incest or health of the mother issues.
I also believe that with restrictions to abortion codified in state laws, that the state then had a duty of care to the unborn children to provide the mother/family with an acceptable economic situation.

 

[Remius]

The dissolution of R v W was a SCOTUS decision that simply put the rules back in the individual state control, where it belongs. Trump had SFA to do with the decision. It being the biggest restriction to individual freedoms in recent memory is both laughable, partisan and disingenuous.

That hasn’t stopped him from claiming he did in fact do that and that his appointments were to do exactly that. He had everything to do with it.

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/trump-ill-appoint-supreme-court-justices-to-overturn-roe-v-wade-abortion-case.html

I get that now it is a bit inconvenant to admit it but it is a fact.

You find it laughable but it isn’t. Not when half your population loses autonomy of their own bodies and can be jailed over it in many places. Name something else that in recent memory that even comes close.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The issue that I see (and as someone who didn’t like Roe v Wade) is that removal of that resulted in some pretty drastic changes, back to laws on the books before R v W, some of which are ethically questionable given medical and physiological knowledge we had today.

I personally believe life begins at conception, however I don’t think that abortion should be forbidden for cases of rape, incest or health of the mother issues.
I also believe that with restrictions to abortion codified in state laws, that the state then had a duty of care to the unborn children to provide the mother/family with an acceptable economic situation.

No argument here.

State voters determine state laws. Majority rules. Unfortunately, most people vote emotion and personal morals. Very few are actually physically affected by the decision. For those that are, they can find places (states) that align with their personal needs, from no abortions for any reason to abortion up to birth. Everyone has a choice.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

That hasn’t stopped him from claiming he did in fact do that and that his appointments were to do exactly that. He had everything to do with it.

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/trump-ill-appoint-supreme-court-justices-to-overturn-roe-v-wade-abortion-case.html

I get that now it is a bit inconvenant to admit it but it is a fact.

You find it laughable but it isn’t. Not when half your population loses autonomy of their own bodies and can be jailed over it in many places. Name something else that in recent memory that even comes close.

The Draft. How many millions of males have had their rights removed and sent to their deaths? They had no right to choose. Well they do, but I don't think the jails could hold that many men. Most chose to follow the law.

I don't consider the actual, real issue laughable. What I find laughable is your premise that no matter what it is, if you think it's bad, you attempt to paint Trump all over it. The bottom line, no matter what quotes you find, it was a SCOTUS decision. Not Trump’s. But then you'd have to be against every SCOTUS decision since the majority became conservative. Are you? Do you disagree with every decision, by SCOTUS, in the last approx eight years?

As far as losing autonomy and being jailed, take it up with the majority voters in the states you disagree with, that made the decision. Or do you not believe in democracy?

And while half the population is female, millions of those females are not losing anything. Seniors, prepubecent, medically unable, to name some of your half having their rights removed. As well as millions that don't agree with your premise.

 

[Remius]

The Draft. How many millions of males have had their rights removed and sent to their deaths? They had no right to choose. Well they do, but I don't think the jails could hold that many men. Most chose to follow the law.

Trump sure got out of that one…

but I wouldn’t consider that recent by any stretch. And the example while seemingly good on a first go is a conflation with duties as a citizen vs rights. You have to pay taxes but you will get thrown in jail is along the same lines.

I don't consider the actual, real issue laughable. What I find laughable is your premise that no matter what it is, if you think it's bad, you attempt to paint Trump all over it.

Hardly. I made no such claim and responded to the claims that were made with counter argument. Read my premises a bit closer. You haven’t refuted what I posted in regards to his part in that. You said he had SFA to do with it. I’ve shown you that isn’t the case.

The bottom line, no matter what quotes you find, it was a SCOTUS decision. Not Trump’s.

He had his part. He’s taken credit for it. Saying he had SFA to do with it isn’t factual. Note I stated “enabled”.

But then you'd have to be against every SCOTUS decision since the majority became conservative.

Not really.

Are you? Do you disagree with every decision, by SCOTUS, in the last approx eight years?

Irrelevant. See above.

As far as losing autonomy and being jailed, take it up with the majority voters in the states you disagree with, that made the decision. Or do you not believe in democracy?

My belief in democracy is not the question at hand. Even if it was, it wasn’t by referendum or by democratic action by the voters. Lobbying sure, agendas etc.

The fact is that women in those states had a right that had now been removed and in some cases criminalized. Which was the point being made about rights being removed.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Trump sure got out of that one…

That's where I stop reasoned discussion with you. Your hate for Trump overshadows most of your narratives. You're always saying Trump is a liar and can't be trusted to tell the truth. Except this time, right?

The rest sounds like you're channeling Harris. Word salad

HAGO

 

[Remius]

That's where I stop reasoned discussion with you.

lol. Of course.

Your hate for Trump overshadows most of your narratives.

I don’t really hate him. Dislike? Maybe. But there are few politicians I really “like”. i certainly agree with some that he is wholly unsuitable for the job of POTUS. I offered you arguments you don’t accept, that doesn’t mean I am doing so from a “hate” position.

The rest sounds like you're channeling Harris. Word salad

I can try and explain it in simpler terms if you prefer. I thought what I said was pretty clear.

HAGO

All good.

 

[QV]

i certainly agree with some that he is wholly unsuitable for the job of POTUS.

Wholly unsuitable to Remius means: no new wars, decent economy, compelling NATO countries to spend more on defence (still shocked army.ca people argue about this one...), being right about EU dependence on Russian energy, ME peace accord...etc etc...