• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: 2024 Election Thread part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
jt512 said:
You can like his policies or not, but my point is at least he has policies: a 25-point summary of them on his website here, and a 16-page elaboration of then here.

You might not like what's there, but at least there is something there.

Harris has yet to present any policy idea whatsoever on her website. There is nothing there. There is no evidence to date that with Harris there is any there there al all.
Click to expand...

Apparently you missed the part about rational policies.

Strengthen out military? We spend as much as the next 10 countries combined. Also, how is he going to do so with wanting to cut taxes? Where does the money come from?

Speaking of that, how is he going to "rebuild our cities" when there is less money coming in? Do you trust him and his cronies to manage the budget?

How is demolishing foreign drug cartels a policy? How would he do that?

If you consider this a selling point, you're a lost cause.

As for Harris, you can cry all you want, but most people understand what her platform is and potential policies. I imagine she'll be rolling them out as the campaign gets its footing, but we'll see.
 
Disbelief said:
Apparently you missed the part about rational policies.

Strengthen out military? We spend as much as the next 10 countries combined. Also, how is he going to do so with wanting to cut taxes? Where does the money come from? Speaking of that, how is he going to "rebuild our cities" when there is less money coming in? Do you trust him and his cronies to manage the budget?

How is demolishing foreign drug cartels a policy? How would he do that?

If you consider this a selling point, you're a lost cause.

As for Harris, you can cry all you want, but most people understand what her platform is and potential policies. I imagine she'll be rolling them out as the campaign gets its footing, but we'll see.
Click to expand...

This has been traditional GOP policy since 1980 when Ronald Reagan embraced Supply Side Economics. Ronald Reagan ran on the promise that lowering taxes would result in a windfall of increased tax collection. This despite the fact that it didn't in 1980 or ever for that matter. His Republican opponent in the primaries and his eventual running mate tagged it as Voodoo Economics. But 1980 changed Republican politics dramatically. By fully embracing the evangelical crazies and gaslighting.
 
jt512 said:
Yeah, what Vice President, period, much less one of an octogenarian with dementia would have no ideas about what they would do if they became the next president? Answer: one who really has no ideas about what they would do.
Click to expand...

Gosh, I enjoy irrational exaggeration and disregard. Thank you for that!
 
jt512 said:
Yeah, what Vice President, period, much less one of an octogenarian with dementia would have no ideas about what they would do if they became the next president? Answer: one who really has no ideas about what they would do.
Click to expand...

No one said she doesn't know. Until Biden withdrew from the race it was his campaign.

As for policy, the Democratic Party Platform is 90+ pages, in what some would say is too much detail.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2024-democratic-party-platform
 
More JD Vance comments resurface, this time attacking childless teachers. He seems to really, really be focused on women deciding not to have children while also having a career. Kind of a "who gave you shoes and allowed you out of the kitchen?" mindset:

In the resurfaced clip, Vance, who was speaking at a forum held by the Center for Christian Virtue, attacks “leaders on the left” and Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, for not having children.

“So many of the leaders of the left, and I hate to be so personal about this, but they’re people without kids trying to brainwash the minds of our children, that really disorients me and disturbs me,” Vance can be heard saying in the clip.

“Randi Weingarten, who’s the head of the most powerful teachers’ union in the country, she doesn’t have a single child. If she wants to brainwash and destroy the minds of children, she should have some of her own and leave ours the hell alone.” Source
Click to expand...

Seriously, Vance is ******* weird. The man's obsession with women having children gives mad creeper vibes.
 
plague311 said:
More JD Vance comments resurface, this time attacking childless teachers. He seems to really, really be focused on women deciding not to have children while also having a career. Kind of a "who gave you shoes and allowed you out of the kitchen?" mindset:



Seriously, Vance is ******* weird. The man's obsession with women having children gives mad creeper vibes.
Click to expand...


He doesn't mind getting kicked out of the bedroom and having to sleep on the sofa.
 
It's a poor attempt to try and expand their mythology around women needing to be property owned by men by sprinkling a dash of "won't somebody think of the children" to it.

Conservatives don't give a **** if a child and you get gunned down or starves or are homeless. They only care about children when the context is "therefore women should have to / shouldn't be able to..."

I've never heard a conservative care about a child once in any concept that didn't have "therefore women" angle to it.
 
plague311 said:
More JD Vance comments resurface, this time attacking childless teachers. He seems to really, really be focused on women deciding not to have children while also having a career. Kind of a "who gave you shoes and allowed you out of the kitchen?" mindset:



Seriously, Vance is ******* weird. The man's obsession with women having children gives mad creeper vibes.
Click to expand...

Which is really weird because it was traditional for teachers to be women who did not have children. Teaching was something young women did before they got married and started families.
 
CarbShark said:
No one said she doesn't know.
Click to expand...


Obviously no Democrat is going to say that she has no idea what she is going to do as president. But it's up to her to demonstrate that she does, and to date, she has utterly failed to do so.

Democrats are putting an awful lot of faith that has demonstrated no evidence that she has any clue what she's doing.
 
jt512 said:
Obviously no Democrat is going to say that she has no idea what she is going to do as president. But it's up to her to demonstrate that she does, and to date, she has utterly failed to do so.

Democrats are putting an awful lot of faith that has demonstrated no evidence that she has any clue what she's doing.
Click to expand...

Because when comparing her to Trump she hasn't shown herself to be an utter failure as POTUS, which Trump has. We already know what policies Trump has, as you've pointed out, and we don't want them. So the natural reaction would be to vote for someone who doesn't have those same polices, for example, Kamala Harris.

This show that you're putting on with your faux concern about how Harris hasn't detailed her plan is transparent as hell. You wouldn't vote for her if she had a breakdown of every policy she wanted to further.
 
Last edited:
jt512 said:
Obviously no Democrat is going to say that she has no idea what she is going to do as president. But it's up to her to demonstrate that she does, and to date, she has utterly failed to do so.

Democrats are putting an awful lot of faith that has demonstrated no evidence that she has any clue what she's doing.
Click to expand...

Republicans voted for Trump when he clearly had no idea what he was doing. Projection from conservatives, as usual.
 
plague311 said:
More JD Vance comments resurface, this time attacking childless teachers. He seems to really, really be focused on women deciding not to have children while also having a career. Kind of a "who gave you shoes and allowed you out of the kitchen?" mindset:

Seriously, Vance is ******* weird. The man's obsession with women having children gives mad creeper vibes.
Click to expand...

This election is turning into a perfect storm for a woman to win the Presidency. Not only do we have an articulate savvy woman running. She is significantly younger than her male opponent. The Republicans are facing 6 ballot initiatives that promise reinstating women's reproductive rights. And then they nominate a backwards unlikable sexist incel for VP.
 
Trump will get the same percentage of women voters within, at most, a couple of percentage points in either direction. There won't be a woman "wave" anymore then there'll be that "Young voter blue wave" we've been waiting on for decades now.

Women voters (speaking only as a demographic) are weird and don't seem to react much to a candidate being anti-woman.

Remember Trump gained women voters from 2016 to 2020.
 
plague311 said:
More JD Vance comments resurface, this time attacking childless teachers. He seems to really, really be focused on women deciding not to have children while also having a career. Kind of a "who gave you shoes and allowed you out of the kitchen?" mindset:

Seriously, Vance is ******* weird. The man's obsession with women having children gives mad creeper vibes.
Click to expand...

This election is turning into a perfect storm for a woman to win the Presidency. Not only do we have an articulate savvy woman running. She is significantly younger than her male opponent. The Republicans are facing 6 ballot initiatives that promise reinstating women's reproductive rights. And then they nominate a backwards unlikable sexist incel for VP.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Trump will get the same percentage of women voters within, at most, a couple of percentage points in either direction. There won't be a woman "wave" anymore then there'll be that "Young voter blue wave" we've been waiting on for decades now.

Women voters (speaking only as a demographic) are weird and don't seem to react much to a candidate being anti-woman.

Remember Trump gained women voters from 2016 to 2020.
Click to expand...

Want to bet?
 
JoeMorgue said:
Trump will get the same percentage of women voters within, at most, a couple of percentage points in either direction. There won't be a woman "wave" anymore then there'll be that "Young voter blue wave" we've been waiting on for decades now.

Women voters (speaking only as a demographic) are weird and don't seem to react much to a candidate being anti-woman.

Remember Trump gained women voters from 2016 to 2020.
Click to expand...

In political science circles, this is known as the "bitches be cray" theory of electoral demographics.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Trump will get the same percentage of women voters within, at most, a couple of percentage points in either direction. There won't be a woman "wave" anymore then there'll be that "Young voter blue wave" we've been waiting on for decades now.

Women voters (speaking only as a demographic) are weird and don't seem to react much to a candidate being anti-woman.

Remember Trump gained women voters from 2016 to 2020.
Click to expand...
White women may not necessarily have abandon Trump in significant numbers between 2016 and 2020.

But, keep in mind that the Dobb's decision (the one that overturned Roe v Wade and removed reproductive rights from millions of women) came down in 2022, long after Trump had left office. I suspect that many of the women who stuck by Trump in the 2020 election probably did so thinking "The abortion issue is settled, so I can worry about other things". Now they can see that voting for a man who nominated Drunky McRapeface and the Stepford Wife to the supreme court CAN impact their lives.

If the democrats manage to remind people about Trump's role in overturning abortion rights, you might see a few more women abandon him.
 
And despite being one of if not the big key "women" issue, women only dislike abortion a little less than men do, it's not a very partisan by way of gender breakdown difference. *

Age and level of education makes a massively bigger differences in your opinion about abortion then simple "Are you a man or a woman?"

My point is simply "Trump's stance on abortion is going to make women vote against him" is a risky thing to hang our hopes on because I'm not sure the numbers really support that.

Now obviously could it happen? Sure. Raw numbers are one thing; things like passion, one issue voters, "this time it's actually too much", etc are much less quantifiable.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religio...on-abortion/#views-on-abortion-by-gender-2024
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom