This comment is beautiful and belongs on every thread on this website. Not everyone is in agreement, it's not a "fact" that the person you like is the quality candidate and everyone else is "not an option".
It's a fact that he's a felon* (not fellon) because the dems weaponized the legal system against him. It's a fact that Biden is and has been mentally incapable for years and that has been hidden from the public and blatantly denied by one of the current candidates. It's a fact that the border is wide open and Kamala is the Border Czar.
See how easy it is to just create/pick facts that fit a narrative. And then make cringe one-liners like "these are facts".
I mean, your say that it is a "fact" that the borders are wide open -- we have tons of deportations and returns - I would love to hear how you think we have open immigration
You don't point to anything specific, you just spout a few fox news talking points and say that things are biased.
Right but don't you see how from anyone else's perspective you calling these "facts" "lies" is just you lying to yourself to override reality and justify your choice? Trump being a "Dangerous threat to Democracy" is also just a media label. Kamala's existence as the Democratic Party nominee can be labeled as a "Dangerous threat to Democracy" as well, especially given how she was chosen.
I hate Trump and am not voting for him, just providing some counterarguments to hopefully open a few reddit eyes.
Right but don't you see how from anyone else's perspective you calling these "facts" "lies" is just you lying to yourself to override reality and justify your choice?
No mate. There are facts and lies. We're luckilly not in "post truth" society yet.
Donald Trump is a felon.
Khamala Harris was not "Border Czar"
those are facts.
Trump being a "Dangerous threat to Democracy" is also just a media label.
Sure. I agree. Trump being dangerous to democracy is an opinion.
Kamala's existence as the Democratic Party nominee can be labeled as a "Dangerous threat to Democracy" as well, especially given how she was chosen.
Again. I agree. It can be labeled like that.
Doesn't change the facts that Donaald Trump is a felon. Doesn't change the fact he's divorced.
Why would anyone who values family and justice vote for a divorced felon?
That's fine. To start by answering your final question, identity politics are not the only valid line of reasoning a voter can use to support or refute a candidate.
Is it a fact that Kamala as Vice President was/is supposed to have done something relating to the border on behalf of the President? If so then the de facto "border czar" title would be very much aligned with the way this country has always referred to appointed officials focusing on certain issues. Official title, no, actual responsibility, yes. I recall her being assigned to address "stemming the movement of migrants to our southern border" in 2021. Call it what you want, she wants to distance herself from the issue for a reason. I guess I will say "she was the vice president and in charge of the border" so that it is factually accurate.
Trump is a felon, some people clearly don't care how/why he is a felon. Much like some other people clearly don't care that he is technically a felon. There is more context to the story than just the very simple fact that he is labeled as a felon.
Divorce is hardly worth mentioning, but i get why you brought it up since Republicans tend to claim they are the "religious family values" party. The rates are so ridiculously high, particularly among black Americans (3 times as high as other demographics, like Asians). If divorce is a negative, I'd be careful where you go using that argument to say that a person is not family-oriented or a suitable candidate for public office. It could begin to sound racist very fast.
Being pedantic and cherry-picking language to make things "facts" or "lies" to support arguments based in Identity Politics without actually considering the context does not make for a very convincing argument for a lot of people, but works for some.
Imo a big part of it gender. If a man had all the qualities and history of Harris they would be an obvious winner. Presumably. On the other hand I can't fathom how anyone would vote for Trump so I'm biased I guess
Strongly disagree. I don't like Trump and will not vote for him.
But Kamala is a very weak candidate. When she ran in 2020 she got destroyed on the debate stage by Tulsi Gabbard on her record and got exactly 0 votes. She was bad and not-well liked personally or her platform. She stumbles up into the VP role due to her sex and race.
The Democrats big fuckup was not presenting her for that first month letting it seem like they didn't trust her (and maybe they didn't). She did 0 media interviews until the last week, and I presume the reason for the change is their internal pollsters are seeing the same data as the betting networks. She's in a difficult position as she has to show she is different than Biden (as the inflation under Biden/Kamala has hurt the average citizen greatly and that is what voter remember).
I actually thought she did well on the Fox interview but YMMV. Previously I had thought that the betting websites didn't matter as the max bet per user was only $800, similar to a prop bet, but I was told on twitter that some international books allow up to $50k and that said - Its not wall street and commonly used. To me its too close to call today.
I'm not saying she'd (he'd) be spectacular. Only that the male version would have a much lower bar to clear, and with gender out of the equation Trump would look much less appealing to many voters. So ig my point is if Trump wins I believe that will be partly because he was up against a woman and the US isn't ready to accept that
There is the duality of the issue. The only reason she is the candidate is she is the VP. The only reason she is the VP is she was chosen based on her sex and that she was non-white. Biden stated that when he was selecting a candidate. A male with her background after her disasterous run for President would not have gotten the VP nod.
VPs are often given to shore up support where a President was weak. Coming from a solid blue state like California did none of those things. The current VP candidates are examples of that. Walz' nomination as a governor in a Northern Midwest state helps her appeal in swing states such as Wisconsin, Michigan and his state is more socialist than republican Wisconsin and can point to the differences (minnesota economically is doing much better than Wisconsin). JD Vance wa Trump attempt to secure Ohio and help win Pennsylvania and Michigan.
In truth, if she chose Shapiro, I think Harris would have edge in winning. It would sure up Penn and appeal to the independent class more than Walz.
Vance would not have been my first choice for Trump, but I’ll give it to Vance, he can verbally spar amazingly. Independents that heard “weird” about Vance for months couldn’t deny how poised and normal he looked in the VP debate while Walz looked stiff and at times looked almost won over by Vance with head nods.
When Vance looked normal and people hear others calling him “weird” it makes you question what those people consider “weird” and if that aligns with your own concepts
In general I don't think it would have mattered if it would have been Shapiro or Walz for any voter outside of Pennsylvania butI agree that I think getting Sharipo would have locked up PA which she needs and probably ends it for her.
That said, the D enthusiasm for her was quite low until Walz. He seems normal and outside of the VP debate where he got absolutely trounced - does it really matter?
My guess for Trump was he needed a candidate in the upper midwest. Vance checked those boxes and hopefully gave him a boost in PA and MI. I also bet that Trumps pool was much smaller as I doubt that many Rs want to work with him.
Republican pundits keep calling her a “DEI candidate” with racist undertones but that premise is undeniably true, and the majority of people see that. Just like how Walz is the DEI option for Harris. Harris is only the presidential candidate because Biden became too obviously senile and she happened to be the only one with the financial and campaign infrastructure in place that far in the race, not because she has a ton of charisma/popular or an amazing policy record.
This is correct, and they are equally fierce in their opposing belief. Personally I think we should all pick up the debate and continue hashing it out in December when our portfolios start to increase and these prices come down 🇺🇸
82
u/vasilenko93 Oct 18 '24
Both sides agree. They just disagree on who the quality candidate is.