US Presidential Election 2024

[bovril]

1 hour ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

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

You could argue the same thing about people who claim to be religious and then vote for a candidate who said recently "I will always stand up for Israel's right to defend itself and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself" as they carry out ethnic cleansing.

 

Of course Trump would probably be as bad if not worse, but the problem with reducing it to a moral choice is that neither candidate is a particularly good person.  

[Benguin]

2 minutes ago, bovril said:

You could argue the same thing about people who claim to be religious and then vote for a candidate who said recently "I will always stand up for Israel's right to defend itself and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself" as they carry out ethnic cleansing.

 

Of course Trump would probably be as bad if not worse, but the problem with reducing it to a moral choice is that neither candidate is a particularly good person.  

It doesn’t matter how many times I say I din’t think Trump is good, all people hear is that I love everything about him and am starting a Trump cult. 
 

 

[Benguin]

4 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

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

There’s no point to anything in your worldview so not concerned by your attack. 

[bovril]

6 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

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

Imagine thinking you are that much smarter than billions of people on the planet that there is literally nothing you can learn from them. 

[Torquay Gunner]

1 hour 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? 

 

 

 

 

Can you be a bit more specific on Harris’s campaign ‘faults’?  What were her deceptions and the issue with DEI? 

[urban.spaceman]

3 minutes ago, Torquay Gunner said:

Can you be a bit more specific on Harris’s campaign ‘faults’?  What were her deceptions and the issue with DEI? 

1 Timothy 2:12

[SpacedX]

34 minutes ago, Benguin said:

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. 

Jesus Christ! er, I mean, good Lord, are you serous? 

[HighPeakFox]

3 minutes ago, SpacedX said:

Jesus Christ! er, I mean, good Lord, are you serious? 

Sometimes, people accuse certain posters of trolling. I really wish that they were, but I think he really does believe what he says.

[Parafox]

2 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

Sometimes, people accuse certain posters of trolling. I really wish that they were, but I think he really does believe what he says.

 

I think that's true of most people, tbf.

 

Issues arise when certain people cannot and/or will not be willing to accept diverse arguments, even with proof.

Edited 2 November 2024 by Parafox

[HighPeakFox]

Just now, Parafox said:

 

I think that's true of most people, tbf.

Sure - I was just pointing out that trolls tend to prioritise winding others up. I think here, it's just clanging cognitive dissonance.

[HighPeakFox]

@grobyfox1990, @Phil Bowman likes my posts - should I be worried?

[Torquay Gunner]

9 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

1 Timothy 2:12

Most probably. 

 

[Dunge]

13 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. 

I’m not going to have a go at you for religion, but I am going to ask you how Kamala being incompetent is your number one reason for voting Trump, who is himself proven to be incompetent in the highest office. Last time he just said and did stuff based on how he felt in a given minute and everyone else had to run around trying to clean up after him. Then, if they complained, he sacked them and tried to destroy their reputation.

 

I know you could claim this as “whataboutery” (a stupid concept at the best of times), but I don’t understand how you can have your #1 voting priority as competence yet then come down on Trump’s side. 

[leicsmac]

1 hour 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. 

In the case of the first paragraph I hardly think it's an apples to apples comparison, but fair enough on incitement clearly being subjective.

 

On the second part, I mean biodiversity and pollution measures as well as climate change. Trump would dismantle the protections that already exist regarding those and leave "the market" to sort it out, which has shown time and again to only do so when the damage has been done and lives of people and other life have been lost. On climate change itself, China built more renewable energy infrastructure last year than the US has done over all its history. It's easy to look at the Far East with large populations and coal plants but China, at least, are looking at the long game (if only due to self-preservation). A US administration headed by Trump would not, and this requires a unified response.

 

Also, I've never understood the idea that someone else not trying to save the world means you shouldn't try yourself anyway. That only guarantees failure.

 

 

1 hour ago, grobyfox1990 said:

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. 

Stick to international agreements regarding it and continue the work on renewable energy infrastructure currently ongoing - which, yes, is better than Trump (even though more needs to be done).

 

She can hardly do more than pledges and support when she's not actually in charge yet.

 

I can't buy into the fatalism that assumes the death, suffering and displacement of hundreds of millions of people (minimum) is a fait accompli.

[MPH]

Just to add an angle to some discussions… I think there might be some gains  for Musk in his bromance with Trump. Neither of them would be ‘ in it’ unless it was on benefit. For musk, I would expect to see something related to the future eve of his business  empires. I don’t think it will just be financial/ tax breaks.. he has more than enough of that. If he gets elected, I’d expect Grump to set some policies in place that could expand the electric car market or make gains with preferred licensing within the space exploration business.

 

 

there has to be something in it for Musk..

[ozleicester]

1 hour ago, HighPeakFox said:

@grobyfox1990, @Phil Bowman likes my posts - should I be worried?

[Jattdogg]

If you had integrity and felt both were beyond incompetent then spoiling your ballot, voting for Rfk (he is on the ballot still i think) or writing someone else's name in would be the right thing to do morally.

 

Most won't do that as basically it's a non vote protest. Just putting it out there lol.

 

 

[bovril]

11 minutes ago, MPH said:

Just to add an angle to some discussions… I think there might be some gains  for Musk in his bromance with Trump. Neither of them would be ‘ in it’ unless it was on benefit. For musk, I would expect to see something related to the future eve of his business  empires. I don’t think it will just be financial/ tax breaks.. he has more than enough of that. If he gets elected, I’d expect Grump to set some policies in place that could expand the electric car market or make gains with preferred licensing within the space exploration business.

 

 

there has to be something in it for Musk..

I think perhaps he just likes Trump (and Putin) because he is attracted to vindictive leaders who don't like being told what to do. It's a narcissistic thing, he sees similarities to himself. Also he seems to have been radicalised against 'the left' because he feels that they brainwashed his son. That's my theory anyway. 

[HighPeakFox]

1 hour ago, Benguin said:

It doesn’t matter how many times I say I din’t think Trump is good, all people hear is that I love everything about him and am starting a Trump cult. 

NOBODY has heard or said that. Nobody. 

[leicsmac]

17 minutes ago, MPH said:

Just to add an angle to some discussions… I think there might be some gains  for Musk in his bromance with Trump. Neither of them would be ‘ in it’ unless it was on benefit. For musk, I would expect to see something related to the future eve of his business  empires. I don’t think it will just be financial/ tax breaks.. he has more than enough of that. If he gets elected, I’d expect Grump to set some policies in place that could expand the electric car market or make gains with preferred licensing within the space exploration business.

 

 

there has to be something in it for Musk..

Certainly Musk will be wanting a favour or two.

 

TBH spaceflight is one of the few policy areas where Trump wasn't terrible, so him partnering with Musk on further reaching out into that is not unexpected and wouldn't be a bad thing. If the Dems win, keeping Musk onside in terms of that one matter should be something that they look at.

[Zear0]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Certainly Musk will be wanting a favour or two.

 

TBH spaceflight is one of the few policy areas where Trump wasn't terrible, so him partnering with Musk on further reaching out into that is not unexpected and wouldn't be a bad thing. If the Dems win, keeping Musk onside in terms of that one matter should be something that they look at.

Are you suggesting he's backing the candidate who's going to put a 300% tariff on non-US manufactured electric cars and de-regulate the FAA for non-political reasons? 

[blabyboy]

41 minutes ago, MPH said:

Just to add an angle to some discussions… I think there might be some gains  for Musk in his bromance with Trump. Neither of them would be ‘ in it’ unless it was on benefit. For musk, I would expect to see something related to the future eve of his business  empires. I don’t think it will just be financial/ tax breaks.. he has more than enough of that. If he gets elected, I’d expect Grump to set some policies in place that could expand the electric car market or make gains with preferred licensing within the space exploration business.

 

 

there has to be something in it for Musk..

You are crack on.

 

Musk needs/wants more of the wavelength spectrum for his Starlink ambitions. He also gets a potential double bubble in that the users of those wavelengths are presently more left or centrist TV Comms channels, so possibly less visibility and resistance to his other ventures.

 

He also has numerous run ins with environmental protection issues around Star base, which have slowed launches and development as well as attracting more costs and fines.

 

Lastly, X has been on the downturn since his takeover and injecting a friendly FCC would be helpful for him, and peripherally, for Truthsocial.

 

Musk is a really marmite guy for me.

Edited 2 November 2024 by blabyboy

[blabyboy]

2 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Are you suggesting he's backing the candidate who's going to put a 300% tariff on non-US manufactured electric cars and de-regulate the FAA for non-political reasons? 

I feel that if the average American understood Trump's tariff plans then he'd be dead in the water immediately....

 

Unfortunately, they do not, but the EU and Asia do. 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Are you suggesting he's backing the candidate who's going to put a 300% tariff on non-US manufactured electric cars and de-regulate the FAA for non-political reasons? 

Ha, yeah.

 

And with that in mind perhaps I and other people should think back to airline travel before the FAA became an entirely politically neutral overseer with the power necessary to enforce regs. Watch Air Crash Investigation for further information.

[The Horse's Mouth]

4 hours ago, westernpark said:

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

The justification behind that would be her currently being in power surely?