Hey, I know it's jokes and all, but let's not make cracks about shooting presidential candidates. Just not a good place to go in general, let alone with what's been actually happening.
🦄 The Casual 2024 Presidential Election
- Thread starter monsterscraponme
- Start date
-
- Tags
- politics united states
- Status
What % of the pro-Israel Christians are currently expecting to vote for Harris? My guess is 99% of them are voting for the republican.
I'm not sure what kind of question it is whether there will be a Palestine by November 2028. There isn't a Palestine right now.
And if you think Gaza is about greed, you've definitely missed the point. Gaza is about racism. Even taking over more and more land in the West Bank is more about racism than greed. They take over that land as a long-term process of genocide, not because they covet the cash value of the land.
Why not both?
It sounds like there are political figures even more extreme than Meir Kahane in Israel now, with actual political power.
Israel thread —————-> thataway. Poochyena’s posts pertain to the election; pontificating about Israel’s motives in Gaza and Israel’s internal politics do not.
Trump apparently wants to visit the states hit by Helene ASAP.
Not sure that's a good idea when more rain is coming...
Not sure that's a good idea when more rain is coming...
Shouldn't be a problem. I believe he's made claims that indicate he can walk on water. If he flip-flops on that, then he can just use a sharpie and make the rain go somewhere else.
Well, those paper towels are not going to distribute themselves!
More rain just means he will have to plan on bringing more paper towels for the visit to make everything better.
Edit: Ninja'd by that
much.
/// OFFICIAL MODERATION NOTICE ///
If you think a post is problematic, report it. Armchair moderation is not needed, thanks.
The point is that the Harris team has theoretically done the full calculus.
% of pro-Israel Christians that will be riled up to vote for Trump (vs. staying home)
% of pro-Israel Jews that may vote Democrat or be riled up to vote for Trump
There is no win-win scenario for Harris taking a stand on Israel. Hoping the Muslims realize that Trump would be even worse is the most pragmatic, though that's bitten Democrats in the past. Catering to the Muslims, many of whom are anti-LGBQT+ and anti-women's rights, isn't a clear win, either.
I’m just talking about what is actually happening, not what could theoretically be a human’s motive.
Being a settler is not at all a lucrative lifestyle and Israel spends way more defending settlements than they could ever hope to make up financially by controlling the land.
It might be greed as in “according to Torah, God gave the Jews the land and we want it back, preferably without Arabs on it,” but it’s not greed in the sense of “I’m going to get monetarily richer by doing this.”
And to me, “greed” isn’t a good word for the former. Genocide fits much better.
I'd need to see some sort of data to believe that. Getting out of middle-east politics has been a very popular stance among democrats for a solid decade now.
I looked for the data, and I found this
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/poll-ukraine-israel/Only 8% of Democrats support the current policy of unconditional aid to Israel.
I really do not understand where the vibe is coming from that Harris MUST support unconditional aid. Supporting common sense conditions like not using the weapons to kill innocent people would be very popular!
If Muslims think the guy behind the overt Muslim ban is better for them, I'm not clear why any words from Harris would change anything.
The problem is the detail. What level is the appropriate support for Israel? Fairly sure different Democrats have different idea on what is appropriate. The problem is "common sense" is rare common. For instance, I would say stop sending anything that is not air defense related, but I am not sure others would agree with me.
Same problem with Universal Healthcare. Everyone support is until we start talking about the detail.
I would cut off everything as long as Israel continues to engage in genocide. Only makes it more galling to me being Jewish, that they claim to engage in genocide in my name.
I certainly understand
Lots of things are popular (abortion, gun control, decriminalizing/legalizing weed) but politically fraught because polling issue results are not electoral results (respondents != voters) and because of the legislative machine (well financed special interests groups) that make the process less direct than it may seem.
Lots of things are popular (abortion, gun control, decriminalizing/legalizing weed) but politically fraught because polling issue results are not electoral results (respondents != voters) and because of the legislative machine (well financed special interests groups) that make the process less direct than it may seem.
Last edited:
This Atlas poll that was showing a greater Trump skew got me looking at their crosstabs. They definitely have more Trump responders than Biden given that Biden won around 1%.
Both Biden and Harris have said they'll visit as well, once it's no longer a burden on local people, which is the correct answer,
But the next rally Harris does, she should say, "Instead of giving to my campaign today, donations for NC, SC, TEN and FLA are more useful". Cynical part of me would note that she'd get lots of free press for that too.
CBS will freely broadcast VP candidate lies in tomorrow's debate with no attempt at fact checking. Giddyup!
A sharpie pen on a board redrawing the lines of where a storm will be is the reality he lives in. There will no rain! So sayeth the sharpie!
Well, they got one thing right. If Hispanics and 18-29 year olds break hard for Trump, Harris will definitely lose. Pollsters generally add a secret sauce to make the raw polling results match their likely voter model... and in most cases, today that means adding extra weight to the Trump voters to account for undersampling in 2016 and 2020.
I'm not saying Harris is definitely going to win, but this poll seems pretty broken.
NY Times Editorial board has given its voting preference: The only patriotic choice for President is Kamala Harris (thats the title of it btw)
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/30/opinion/editorials/kamala-harris-2024.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/30/opinion/editorials/kamala-harris-2024.html
This is a thing that I tell myself to help me sleep at night: that the pollsters are just Kentucky Windage-ing all this and being like, "well, we keep underestimating Trump support, so we'll just throw a few percentage points his way to hope it balances out". I know that's not really what they're doing- at least, not that simply- but I just have a hard time understanding how Trump can be polling so well, unless either a. there's a bunch of new voters who are Trump supporters or b. there's a startling number of people who decided hey, maybe Trump was okay after all, and he's just gotten better with age.
That's probably more a "me" problem than a poll problem, but man... please let this all be a bad dream where I wake up with Blue across Michigan, Wisconsin, PA, and let's throw in NC and NV so I can feel a little better about my country, okay?
I’m just talking about what is actually happening, not what could theoretically be a human’s motive.
Being a settler is not at all a lucrative lifestyle and Israel spends way more defending settlements than they could ever hope to make up financially by controlling the land.
It might be greed as in “according to Torah, God gave the Jews the land and we want it back, preferably without Arabs on it,” but it’s not greed in the sense of “I’m going to get monetarily richer by doing this.”
And to me, “greed” isn’t a good word for the former. Genocide fits much better.
For Israelis priced out of the desirable neighborhoods in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, the settlements are appealing, because prices are lower and there is all this new infrastructure, including good schools.
So a lot of people, even those who might have been against settlements, move there because it's financially advantageous.
It's not just settlers with an agenda.
I'm sure it stung having to publish that, but at least we know that when pressed the NYT can do the right thing. All the same, if Kamala wins, I still want to see her stiff arm them for an interview for her entire term.
Remember everyone:
I hope Colbert skewers the moderators right afterwards if they just let Vance vamp off the freaking rails.
Does it count if Vance takes a nod to Cruise's appearance on Oprah by leaping over the sofa?Remember everyone:
I hope Colbert skewers the moderators right afterwards if they just let Vance vamp off the freaking rails.
And government spending for those people is twice what it per capita compared to Israelis in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. And for the ones in the outposts, it’s three times. So it’s the government subsidy, not the land itself, that people who move economically are moving for. The government could do that anywhere — build neighborhoods with cheaper housing, good infrastructure and good schools. “Greedy” Israelis would move wherever the government would subsidize them at 2-3x what the government spends per citizen in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. Would probably be even cheaper elsewhere, as a big cost to development in the West Bank is security-related.
So greed is pushing people to live off the government’s largesse. But why does that mean it has to be on Palestinian land? And we’re back to genocide.
As far as looking at economy-wide, the more land Israel takes from Palestinians, the worse the economic result compared to the same investment in Israel proper. Hardly an argument for greed being the driver at that level.
Just can't leave it alone, in the NYT "endorsement" is this chestnut (my bold text):
I'd like to see how the WAPO does in comparison.
This is well down in the text. So, that's 15 paragraphs of Trump's flaws and 8 paragraphs of Harris' strong points and one of neither.
I'd like to see how the WAPO does in comparison.
Per the unscripted—Trump hasn’t agreed to another debate, has he? Can’t blame Harris for being coy, given how the media has been treating Dems in general. As for Trump, how are the electric boats and sharks doing?
Trump is planning to go to the Helene affected states to go find out
Why does Trump have 50% support?
- Racists / Xenophobes
- Know-nothing voters who think “I liked the Apprentice”.
- Conservative media consumers who get fed on a diet of lies.
- Conservative ideologues who would vote Republican because even fascism is better than whatever their personal bugaboo is — better than Marxism, paying more taxes, women having the right to make their own healthcare decisions, gays having rights, whatever single or multiple issue(s) they put ahead of democracy.
Keep in mind that it’s even scarier than I make it sound there. Many of those in the last two categories are convinced that it’s really Harris’ Marxism that is a danger to democracy, not Trump’s attempted coup. To me, that self-delusion is even scarier than someone just wanting fascism.
EDIT: By that, I mean they don’t just see Harris’ liberalism as a danger, they have deluded themselves into not seeing the fascism they’re voting for.
/// OFFICIAL MODERATION NOTICE ///
The Israel tangent either needs to steer back to being vaguely on topic, or we're going to steer you out of the thread.
Walz has supposedly expressed concern about debating against Vance, who's reportedly done well in debates while Walz hasn't.
Buttigieg is debating as Vance in the practice sessions.
Buttigieg is debating as Vance in the practice sessions.
Harris beat the living snot out of Trump in their debate, and it barely mattered at all. I'm not remotely convinced the VP debate even matters at all. I hope Walz does well and introduces himself in a good way to people who aren't familiar with him yet, but other than that I can't see the needle moving either way.
Harris isn’t even a liberal, but more of a centrist. The Overton Window has shifted so far to the right that most people don’t register this.
I think that the only way it would move a needle is if JD comes across as a creepy pyscho AND a health event strikes Trump hard enough that it looks like he won't out live 4 terms.
Even then I don't think it will change the outcome.
I can't remember when, if ever, the VP debate really made a difference in the overall race. Remember the biggest whomping in VP debate history, "Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy". Bush/Quayle won the election resoundingly despite Quayle getting clubbed like the proverbial baby seal.
- Status