US Presidential Election 2024

[grobyfox1990]

1 minute ago, HighPeakFox said:

Being popular isn't important.

Aye true but I genuinely can’t believe, over 8 years after brexit, that everyone hasn’t worked out that snotty condescending comments in fact do not win friends and influence people 

[HighPeakFox]

1 minute ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Aye true but I genuinely can’t believe, over 8 years after brexit, that everyone hasn’t worked out that snotty condescending comments in fact do not win friends and influence people 

I'm not trying to. These people aren't listening to anyone.

[The Horse's Mouth]

19 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

Being popular isn't important.

Not sure you know how elections work 

[grobyfox1990]

26 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

I'm not trying to. These people aren't listening to anyone.

Not directed at you personally, general comment 

[HighPeakFox]

12 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

Not sure you know how elections work 

I am not running for office, am I?

[Daggers]

13 hours ago, Foxdiamond said:

Still staggers me that a bloke who basically instigated the Capitol riot etc is able to run again plus that so many will vote for him

Still staggers me that a rapist and paedophile was able to run for the first time.

[Daggers]

 

[Benguin]

Foxestalk poster logic in response to dissenting view:

 

Step 1: Ignore at least 50% of the post in question.

Step 2: Construct a straw man to argue with 

Step 3: Link response to known but irrelevant opinions of poster to try and make them seem hypocritical.

Step 4: double down so that any chance of reasonable engagement is out of the question.

 

If you are expecting an appologetic for Donald Trump from me then you didn’t read my post. I made four claims:

 

1. Donald Trump is ridiculous

2. Kamala is incompetent 

3. Donald Trumps first term wasn’t as disastrous as predicted when compared to KPI’s I care about. (Important to note that doesn’t mean it was good, or free from problems) 

4. The USA has had a bad track record in recent years of fielding terrible candidates for presidency.

 

now thats out there - which one do you want to engage on? 

[HighPeakFox]

2 hours ago, Benguin said:

Foxestalk poster logic in response to dissenting view:

 

Step 1: Ignore at least 50% of the post in question.

Step 2: Construct a straw man to argue with 

Step 3: Link response to known but irrelevant opinions of poster to try and make them seem hypocritical.

Step 4: double down so that any chance of reasonable engagement is out of the question.

 

If you are expecting an appologetic for Donald Trump from me then you didn’t read my post. I made four claims:

 

1. Donald Trump is ridiculous

2. Kamala is incompetent 

3. Donald Trumps first term wasn’t as disastrous as predicted when compared to KPI’s I care about. (Important to note that doesn’t mean it was good, or free from problems) 

4. The USA has had a bad track record in recent years of fielding terrible candidates for presidency.

 

now thats out there - which one do you want to engage on? 

OK Benguin. I will engage on any or all of your claims, as long as you don't conveniently fail to acknowledge any of the other factors that should stop anyone with any semblance of sentience from justifying voting for (let's not beat about the bush here) someone quite happy to destroy democratic processes because he otherwise will end up incarcerated - c.f. Jan 6 2001 for reference. You don't get to frame the debate for your own convenience - others may chip in in response to your highly limited reading of the situation. If you wish to display cognitive bias, expect to be called out on it.

 

If you're going with the unproven 'Kamala Harris is incompetent' (in fact, she has a long track record of the opposite in her field) without any obvious justification, then we are already beyond the possibility of reasonable engagement, so spare us the deflection.

Edited 2 November 2024 by HighPeakFox

[Grebfromgrebland]

11 hours ago, Benguin said:

Trump is utterly ridiculous but he’d get my vote for the following reasons:

 

1. Kamala is incompetent 

2. The line - “you are going to put that cartoon in charge of the nuclear weapons” doesn’t really have credibility since he has already had a term and seemed to do all right. 
 

Shame that the USA has been incapable of nominating decent candidates in recent history though. 

It's crazy how people can claim to be religious and then think trump is a good candidate. 

[westernpark]

2 hours ago, Benguin said:

Foxestalk poster logic in response to dissenting view:

 

Step 1: Ignore at least 50% of the post in question.

Step 2: Construct a straw man to argue with 

Step 3: Link response to known but irrelevant opinions of poster to try and make them seem hypocritical.

Step 4: double down so that any chance of reasonable engagement is out of the question.

 

If you are expecting an appologetic for Donald Trump from me then you didn’t read my post. I made four claims:

 

1. Donald Trump is ridiculous

2. Kamala is incompetent 

3. Donald Trumps first term wasn’t as disastrous as predicted when compared to KPI’s I care about. (Important to note that doesn’t mean it was good, or free from problems) 

4. The USA has had a bad track record in recent years of fielding terrible candidates for presidency.

 

now thats out there - which one do you want to engage on? 

I don’t understand how you can claim Harris is incompetent? Without justification.

[Benguin]

5 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

OK Benguin. I will engage on any or all of your claims, as long as you don't conveniently fail to acknowledge any of the other factors that should stop anyone with any semblance of sentience from justifying voting for (let's not beat about the bush here) someone quite happy to destroy democratic processes because he otherwise will end up incarcerated - c.f. Jan 6 2001 for reference. You don't get to frame the debate for your own convenience - others may chip in in response to your highly limited reading of the situation. If you wish to display cognitive bias, expect to be called out on it.

 

If you're going with the unproven 'Kamala Harris is incompetent' (in fact, she has a long track record of the opposite in her field) without any obvious justification, then we are already beyond the possibility of reasonable engagement, so spare us the deflection.

I disagree that I should not be permitted to frame a debate when I am making a claim, no point debating for something I don’t actually think. This is not debate club.

 

I will frame the debate to avoid “dumping” from the other side.

 

I assume you have no problem with my first claim that Donald trump is utterly ridiculous, so let’s start with my second claim that Kamala is incompetent. By this I am implying to be president, I am sure she has competence at some aspects of life. 
 

To determine her competency to be in office we should look at the following:  What is her track record? How has her campaign been? 

Kamala should have ran her campaign by doubling down on what’s worked these last 4 years and being critical of what hasn’t and making a point that once she is in office she will address that. She should have been brave and answered hard questions. She should have done more interviews. Instead she ran a campaign on deception, DEI and parroting others. Trump is winning in the polls not because of his competence but because his Kamala vs Kamala campaign is effective! 
 

Looking at very left leaning articles to find tangible achievements from her Vice Presidency has proved really difficult. 
 

I don’t believe she has demonstrated that she will be effective in office. 
 

Keen to hear why you think she will be? 

 

 

 

 

[Benguin]

17 minutes ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

It's crazy how people can claim to be religious and then think trump is a good candidate. 

It’s crazy how people can read something and then immediately seize to remember what they read. 

[suffolk fox]

4 hours ago, Daggers said:

 

Interesting.  In regards TO Richard Nixon and the watergate scandal.. How times have changed should have been indicted for that alone.  Typical Yanks, rules for one not others.  How the hell of the millions of people that live in the USA can they come up with two candidates neither of which are fit for office.

[Benguin]

3 minutes ago, suffolk fox said:

Interesting.  In regards TO Richard Nixon and the watergate scandal.. How times have changed should have been indicted for that alone.  Typical Yanks, rules for one not others.  How the hell of the millions of people that live in the USA can they come up with two candidates neither of which are fit for office.

I agree, it forces to people to chose between incompetence and a meme and then when you chose the meme people point out that you are choosing a meme and its like, yeah I know, he’s not great - I don’t like him but I like her less and then they are like why do you like him so much and then you’re like I don’t and on and on it goes. 

[HighPeakFox]

1 minute ago, Benguin said:

It’s crazy how people can read something and then immediately seize to remember what they read. 

Listen fella - you've boldly led by saying you'd vote Trump, and you're also out there with your religion at times too. Harris is not perfect, however, your claim that Trump is polling ahead is highly contentious. Perhaps if you didn't display your opinions as facts, you wouldn't get so many backs up.

 

I am afraid that whatever metrics you are using to judge Harris' competency, you aren't being consistent in judging Trump by the same metrics. So, given he's a man that loses billions, has filed for bankruptcy numerous times and grifts endlessly because he's such a failure as a businessman, I'd say he's far less competent for office. Never mind the small matter of wanting to take away female bodily autonomy, threatening to deport humans and threatening to jail his political opponents. You don't get to file that under 'ridiculous' and not be challenged. 'Ridiculous' is justifying voting for this maniac.

[ozleicester]

43 minutes ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

It's crazy how people can claim to be religious and then think trump is a good candidate. 

TBF... they are the exact type of trump voter

[Benguin]

27 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

Listen fella - you've boldly led by saying you'd vote Trump, and you're also out there with your religion at times too. Harris is not perfect, however, your claim that Trump is polling ahead is highly contentious. Perhaps if you didn't display your opinions as facts, you wouldn't get so many backs up.

 

I am afraid that whatever metrics you are using to judge Harris' competency, you aren't being consistent in judging Trump by the same metrics. So, given he's a man that loses billions, has filed for bankruptcy numerous times and grifts endlessly because he's such a failure as a businessman, I'd say he's far less competent for office. Never mind the small matter of wanting to take away female bodily autonomy, threatening to deport humans and threatening to jail his political opponents. You don't get to file that under 'ridiculous' and not be challenged. 'Ridiculous' is justifying voting for this maniac.

Firstly you don’t seem to understand the word bold. Below would be an example of bold:

 

I am voting for Trump because I love him and think he is amazing and I vehemently support him.

 

That’s not what I said, I said I would vote Trump because the alternative option is incompetence and his first presidency wasn’t as bad as people predicted. I caveated that by saying its amazing how the USA has been incapable of nominating decent candidates in recent years. The implication being, as you well know, that I don’t think Trump is great. 
 

It’s interesting you talk about religion as that is one of the predominant reasons I dislike Trump. I feel a leader should be above reproach and Trump is very immoral in many reasons. 
 

Voting in todays day and age where immoral, incompetent, deceitful candidates tend to get top if the list is far less about voting because you support someone and far more about voting for the lesser of two evils. 
 

my post is more about why this shouldn’t happen and we shouldn’t cultishly follow a candidate in the way the right do for Trump and the left do for Kamala. We should stand up and call out the bad in both of them.

 

So there is no filing anything away thank you very much! 

[HighPeakFox]

Just now, Benguin said:

Firstly you don’t seem to understand the word bold. Below would be an example of bold:

 

I am voting for Trump because I love him and think he is amazing and I vehemently support him.

 

That’s not what I said, I said I would vote Trump because the alternative option is incompetence and his first presidency wasn’t as bad as people predicted. I caveated that by saying its amazing how the USA has been incapable of nominating decent candidates in recent years. The implication being, as you well know, that I don’t think Trump is great. 
 

It’s interesting you talk about religion as that is one of the predominant reasons I dislike Trump. I feel a leader should be above reproach and Trump is very immoral in many reasons. 
 

Voting in todays day and age where immoral, incompetent, deceitful candidates tend to get top if the list is far less about voting because you support someone and far more about voting for the lesser of two evils. 
 

my post is more about why this shouldn’t happen and we shouldn’t cultishly follow a candidate in the way the right do for Trump and the left do for Kamala. We should stand up and call out the bad in both of them.

 

So there is no filing anything away thank you very much! 

If you really think the two candidates are equally bad, or that Trump is the lesser of two evils, then we really have nothing left to discuss.

[leicsmac]

43 minutes ago, Benguin said:

I disagree that I should not be permitted to frame a debate when I am making a claim, no point debating for something I don’t actually think. This is not debate club.

 

I will frame the debate to avoid “dumping” from the other side.

 

I assume you have no problem with my first claim that Donald trump is utterly ridiculous, so let’s start with my second claim that Kamala is incompetent. By this I am implying to be president, I am sure she has competence at some aspects of life. 
 

To determine her competency to be in office we should look at the following:  What is her track record? How has her campaign been? 

Kamala should have ran her campaign by doubling down on what’s worked these last 4 years and being critical of what hasn’t and making a point that once she is in office she will address that. She should have been brave and answered hard questions. She should have done more interviews. Instead she ran a campaign on deception, DEI and parroting others. Trump is winning in the polls not because of his competence but because his Kamala vs Kamala campaign is effective! 
 

Looking at very left leaning articles to find tangible achievements from her Vice Presidency has proved really difficult. 
 

I don’t believe she has demonstrated that she will be effective in office. 
 

Keen to hear why you think she will be? 

 

 

 

 

And of course you are free to do that. However, if the framing misses legitimate points that have been asked about, accusations of strawmanning/deflection could be leveled and would be legit themselves. So those things come hand in hand.

 

On that note, if I may ask to clarify; are both the events of January 6th 2021 and the biosphere low on your priority list when it comes to issues this time round, and if they are, may I ask why?

[Benguin]

22 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And of course you are free to do that. However, if the framing misses legitimate points that have been asked about, accusations of strawmanning/deflection could be leveled and would be legit themselves. So those things come hand in hand.

 

On that note, if I may ask to clarify; are both the events of January 6th 2021 and the biosphere low on your priority list when it comes to issues this time round, and if they are, may I ask why?

I think the evidence that the left wing media and politicians incited the assassination attempts in Trump are stronger than the evidence Trump incited violence on January 6th. That said I don’t think either were incitement and my bar for what constitutes incitement is probably very different to yours. 
 

Nit sure what you mean by the second point? Forgive my ignorance but do you mean climate change? If so, its important but relatively futile until we have a globalist world. Until Asia are playing ball we are just fumbling in the dark on climate change. 

[grobyfox1990]

28 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And of course you are free to do that. However, if the framing misses legitimate points that have been asked about, accusations of strawmanning/deflection could be leveled and would be legit themselves. So those things come hand in hand.

 

On that note, if I may ask to clarify; are both the events of January 6th 2021 and the biosphere low on your priority list when it comes to issues this time round, and if they are, may I ask why?

I’m still waiting for an actually policy or intent of what Kamala would do to help alleviate warming. Aside from pledges and support. ‘She’s better than trump’ - without evidence - is not policy. 

[Grebfromgrebland]

5 minutes ago, Benguin said:

I think the evidence that the left wing media and politicians incited the assassination attempts in Trump are stronger than the evidence Trump incited violence on January 6th. That said I don’t think either were incitement and my bar for what constitutes incitement is probably very different to yours. 
 

Nit sure what you mean by the second point? Forgive my ignorance but do you mean climate change? If so, its important but relatively futile until we have a globalist world. Until Asia are playing ball we are just fumbling in the dark on climate change. 

Don't believe the evidence of your eyes and ears.....

[HighPeakFox]

8 minutes ago, Benguin said:

I think the evidence that the left wing media and politicians incited the assassination attempts in Trump are stronger than the evidence Trump incited violence on January 6th. That said I don’t think either were incitement and my bar for what constitutes incitement is probably very different to yours. 
 

Nit sure what you mean by the second point? Forgive my ignorance but do you mean climate change? If so, its important but relatively futile until we have a globalist world. Until Asia are playing ball we are just fumbling in the dark on climate change. 

Alexa, define 'heavy lifting' for me. I keep forgetting that all those media outlets are owned by evil leftie oligarchs and billionaires.

[ozleicester]

There is never a point to discussing facts with anyone who believes in a god