Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

?????? v Trump (and one or two others) The US Presidential election 2024. Read OP before posting

Options
15859606264

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,770 ✭✭✭eightieschewbaccy


    The article was overall positive about Harris running for president in 2020… Trump has only turned out to be a far worse since then. So you've effectively gone against your own point with your sources.



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,956 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    well at least your mask is finally slipping and you’re admitting these are your racist and sexist thoughts now that the article you tried to Google to proxy your viewpoint through someone else has totally backfired.



  • Registered Users Posts: 256 ✭✭highpitcheric


    But my question is:

    Are all of the operatives, veterans and various officials of the Democrat party, those who reached the conclusion that a white guy was the best shot. Are they somehow racist and bad?



  • Registered Users Posts: 33,686 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Biden won the Democratic Primaries in 2020. That's why he was the nominee. Nobody said the primary voters were racist and bad.



  • Registered Users Posts: 256 ✭✭highpitcheric


    Ah but I am for reaching the same conclusion today, as multiple Democratic party officials did in 2019.

    Apology accepted.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 33,686 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    You're suggesting Harris shouldn't run solely because she's a black woman. That doesn't mean people in 2020 voted for Biden solely because he was a white man.

    Again, you're the one playing more identity politics with this than anyone else.



  • Registered Users Posts: 256 ✭✭highpitcheric


    Lol. Some gymnastics here.

    The most high of the democrat party can suggest in 2019 that a white male might be their best bet.

    Not racist meanies.

    I suggest the same 5 years later. .... racist meanie.

    👍



  • Registered Users Posts: 33,686 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Because it's the person, not their race or gender that matters. Biden was a decent candidate in 2020. Old as f*ck even then, but given his experience as a former VP he was a decent candidate especially as an experienced hand to help right the ship after Trump and Covid. However now in 2024, age took a considerable toll on him and he became more likely to lose to Trump. So Harris, given her experience as the current VP is the preferred candidate.

    It's not their race or gender that is the defining quality of what makes them the most suitable to be the nominee. Yet that seems to be all that matters to you given your assertion that Harris should be passed over for "a white guy".

    That's the difference.



  • Registered Users Posts: 256 ✭✭highpitcheric


    Theres no difference.

    Both parties run candidates who are partly selected on the basis of gender and race.

    Because right or wrong thats what some people vote for.

    Just the way it is.

    And you have to factor it in if you want to win.

    Like it or not.



  • Registered Users Posts: 910 ✭✭✭The Phantom Jipper


    Out of curiosity, when Harris picks Shapiro or Kelly to be her running mate, will these guys be getting labelled as diversity picks? Or will she still be the diversity pick despite being the incumbent on the ticket?



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,392 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    How will their lives be upturned?


    A comment by my pretty politically uninterested daughter at the dinner table yesterday started a discussion. (Shes 15, I really don’t care that she’s not politically engaged). She observed that her foreign friends on Discord seemed to be more interested than she would expect in the US presidential election.

    My wife agreed. She works for a company out of Finland, and they are all following it closely as well, and of course, I’m watching it here. We think it’s because foreigners think that the President can actually do a lot, given heads of government in other countries normally do. But to be head of government in a place like the UK, you also need to be of the party controlling the legislature. And in those countries, there is basically no limit to the laws which can be passed.

    Such is not the case in the US. Most of my life is controlled by the State and local government, not by D.C. What does get passed by DC still has to run the gauntlet of two chambers of congress, either one of which (or both) can be controlled by the party opposing the President. Regulatory changes conducted after moves by new political appointees in agencies more normally affect businesses, not people.

    The biggest concern I have with Trump as regards the direction of the country is in terms of foreign relations. That is directly in the office’s wheelhouse, but it doesn’t directly upturn my life one way or the other if Ukraine is abandoned, for example. It’s bad, and I hope it doesn’t happen, but my life here will more or less continue as normal for the next few years. (That said, if he decides to go all in on ego and use the US military, it might).

    So what part of the US citizen’s life will be upturned with a Trump presidency that doesn’t require that Democrats (and moderate Republicans and independents) also perform abysmally?



  • Registered Users Posts: 489 ✭✭Babyreignbow


    good thing everyone is tired of old white men then

    If a thousand suns were to rise
    and stand in the noon sky, blazing,
    such brilliance would be like the fierce
    brilliance of that mighty Self.”



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,956 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    the foreign policy stuff you mention, NATO etc. but also electing more justices to the bench and pushing for Project 2025 stuff, like going for an outright federal ban on reproductive healthcare. I don’t know what the situation is in Texas but in some states there is already no exceptions for rape, ergo rapists get to choose the mother of their children. Nevermind the risk to any pregnant woman anywhere of an ectopic pregnancy. And that’s all without consideration to the onerous corruption what with national secrets and the money flowing in from foreign nationals, that doesn’t fit your descriptor of things that would directly affect the ordinary person.

    Last time he was in office my work was affected by his Tarrif war and my academia was affected by his ban on visas for many foreign exchange students, what work did and who I interacted with or not was dramatically impacted as a result of his policies. Without any consideration to how he mismanaged the national covid response and played around with all that.



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,715 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    I have serious doubts about Kamala Harris and her appeal to moderate/open-to-persuasion Republican voters but at least she has a much better chance than Biden did at laying some hits on Trump.

    I still think Trump is in the ascendancy in the election for now. She has to hit the ground running.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,392 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    The abortion situation in Texas is indeed abysmal, but that happened in the Biden administration. As I said, my life is more controlled by states, not the federal government. If you want to blame Trump for getting the judges in place who overturned Roe, then you must also blame the Senate which confirmed them. Or Congress for not passing some form of protective legislation for decades.

    In any case, the underlying issue is far more than just “Trump”



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,956 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    that’s not a reason to not care about the election, presidency/leader of given party or the party’s political mandate.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,392 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    I agree, it isn’t.

    But my point isn’t “don’t care”, but “ease off the hyperbole”. Unless nukes start flying, a Trump presidency isn’t going to be world-ending. Negative, perhaps, but not terminal. And to reduce the negative, there is still Congress.



  • Registered Users Posts: 20,761 ✭✭✭✭yourdeadwright


    I wonder why didn't Biden step aside & make Harris Pres now,
    Surely it would give her the upper hand on Donald ?



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,995 ✭✭✭Oscar_Madison


    On a more lighter note, I see a summary headline note of Project 2025 that states one of its objectives is to outlaw porn?
    That can’t possibly go down well with young Americans can it?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,458 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    I think that's a very naive and blinkered view, given the clearly stated goals for a 2nd Trump administration. Putting aside the possibility that there might not be another fair election if he wins, the dismantling of the Federal Administrative state would be devastating. A corrupt Supreme Court giving top cover to an out of control Executive, with probably 1 House of Congress to boot.

    How well will society function without the IRS, the FDA, the Departments of Justice, Education, Energy et al, let alone the EPA.



  • Registered Users Posts: 175 ✭✭thatsdaft


    Nukes don’t need to fly for US republic to be replaced by a monarchy with Trump family dynasty

    Trump already tried once



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,891 ✭✭✭Flaneur OBrien


    Sure. Without revealing too much, I have a friend with a teenage trans son. His medical treatment may stop as Trump and Vanc have said no medical treatment for teenage trans individuals.

    I have another friend who works in an administration role. One that Project 2025 want to replace with Trump sycophants.

    That's two specific cases. I have other friends that could get pregnant and not being able to choose to abort if they had to make that choice as JD Vance has said that he wants a "national standard" on abortion.

    Lastly, I have one set of gay friends that are married to each other. They have told me that they're scared that their relationship is no longer guaranteed with the current Christian majority make up of the supreme court, and if Trump gets in again, there's a much higher chance that gay marriage may be banned (or more likely, "left up to states to decide"). They live in a pretty rural state so chances would be high that it would be banned there.

    So yeah, I hear you about republican presidents affecting businesses more. However, Trump is not your typical president, and Project 2025 is a terrifying read as a manual to make America a fundamental Christian Nation.



  • Registered Users Posts: 256 ✭✭highpitcheric


    "The most traditional thing to do would be to balance the ticket with a White male elected official from a key swing state,” Brownstein said, adding that the list would include Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly and North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper.

    Alternatively, Harris could pick Whitmer as her running mate “to create a high risk, potentially high reward all-female ticket, which would certainly generate a lot of excitement,” Brownstein said.

    - Ron Brownstein, CNNs senior political analyst.

    https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/joe-biden-election-drop-out-07-22-24/index.html



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,458 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    I think Kelly or Cooper would be the likely options. Whitmer would be ideal, as a presidential candidate, think she would be wasted as VP. Shapiro is very new and has some sex related scandals to boot iirc.



  • Registered Users Posts: 30,085 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Shapiro has sex related scandals?

    So he'll appeal to the swing voters that might vote for Trump then :)

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,436 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    The Democrats have to be careful, the VP pick cannot outshine the Presidential candidate. They also need to Swing States, I don't think a California politician is going to cut it, they also need the black male vote, Harris will more than likely alienate even more black men than Biden did…is there any record that she is a good campaigner, because she'll have to run an impeccable campaign because of the time they've lost…she's a lot of States to get to and ad spends on tv don't move the dial so much anymore!!!! That's before we get into her record as a prosecuter and the manner with which she finds herself as the candidate…

    We are living in extraordinary times, The Democratrs have just been forced into a hail mary!!!



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,324 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Thats a difficult assignment a VP that wont outshine Harris ;-)

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 82,956 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Mark Kelly seems the right choice to me, and him debating Vance is television i would pay to see: snot nosed ex marine vs. decorated Navy air combat and space pilot.

    Vance was a war correspondent and public relations officer, a pencil pusher who only on a few occasions embedded with a unit, and no apparent combat experience. Mark Kelly flew 39 combat missions in desert storm. Among other decorations Kelly earned the Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit, two Distinguished Flying Crosses. And he’s flown the space shuttle. He’d probably sh*t Vance for breakfast.



Advertisement