Topic: [BET] Trump or Harris 2024, Poker Player vs suchmoon - page 6. (Read 2719 times)

Yes, I like this option too, although I tend to be more right-wing I think it is good that there is alternation because when a party spends many legislatures in power it is corrupted in many ways, not only in the legal corruption. In this case it would not be alternation but Trump winning and not having all the power, which is good too.


I've already noticed that you really like to think about what would happen and even what would have happened if what actually happened didn't happen but I prefer to focus on the facts you know? And the facts are that before Trump won for the first time similar arguments of what would happen were made saying he could get us into WW3, and nothing could be further from that.

A certain person, a cannabis lover, supported Harris. It's not the best advertisement for her at all 

So many activity bots...

Trump needs to put the squeeze on Putin after his victory so that he does not win in Ukraine.

Why would Cabala need to be divisive when her regime is already killing millions and destroying countries... the US included?

Trump has cited nearly all authoritarians in the world as models ... strong men, decisive... we are taking Kim & Putin as the cool guys in his imaginary.

And about that first term, I would like to know more about the curve you are using. At least in terms of communications it as a complete conundrum of confusing messages - just remember covid. At this moment, the US economy is at full speed , particularly if you compare it with the rest of the world.

On war, anyone can stop the war in Ukraine (not so much in the Middle East), all you need to do is surrender or reach a botched deal and get ready for another war in 3 years or prepare to spend ridiculous money to keep the NATO borders with Russia defended.

But my bottom line is that is terribly divisive leader. Kamala is not very efficient, but she is not divisive.

Do you think he would be anti war if he thought he starting a war would give him more power, or that he would look weak if he didn't start a war, or if starting a war were the only way to stop the democrats from sweeping in the midterms, or if he just wanted to be a bad ass manly man?
I don't think he's pro or anti much of anything other than himself.  We already know he had to be talked out of bombing mexico and Irans nuclear facilities.  He also had no problem escalating things with North Korea.  I don't think it's that crazy to think he'd start a war because of a conspiracy theory some random started on his social network. And he'd definitely think he could blame someone else and get away with it.

Yeah, I'm not that far from considering Harris the lesser evil. Trump's first term was pretty good (grading on a curve here...), but that's because he often listened to the Republican establishment when they told him that he was being stupid. This time around he seemingly plans to surround himself with only loyalists. In a few cases this is good -- Trump is much more anti-war than the Republican elites, for example --, but in many cases this is bad. Trump's policies on immigration and tarriffs will hurt the economy, and JD-Vance-style Christian Nationalism is almost diametrically opposed to the sort of free society I'd like to live in. The fact that Trump cited authoritarian Viktor Orbán positively in the last debate is not a good sign.

But with Harris also being very bad, I consider Trump the lesser evil because:
 - He will do some very good things, especially deregulation
 - He seems to have a strong anti-war instinct
 - He used to be a Democrat, and I think that in his heart of hearts he has no interest in promoting conservative social policies. (Though he will go along with this stuff when it's politically convenient.)
 - His administration will be a total mess, just like last time, so he won't be nearly as effective at advancing his terrible policies as Harris would be with hers.

Yep, the models at this point are meaningless. Even The Economist which tends to have sophisticated models is giving a 50-50 chance, but in the end this ends up in a few swing states, which in turn end up in a few swing counties, which in turn ends up in a few thousands - sometimes a few hundred votes.

For me this does not make any sense and it is not the only country in which it does not make sense, it tends to ignore minorities that are substantial enough to make a difference. But it is not going to change, the popular vote has been Democrat since 2008 if I recall correctly, so no chance of changing the system.

I could probably live with this.

I'd consider myself undecided, although hopefully not low-information... but TBH, it feels designed this way, I definitely can't do the research I should be doing to keep up with the misinformation, most people can't. Most people I know are continually overwhelmed with life in general, work, and just getting by... most people don't have time to fact check and dig deep into things like we really need to do these days. Plus we're all flooded with devices that not only lower our attention span, but keep us locked into various algorithms which alter people's general psyche.

I still don't see either candidate as being a president I want. Given the options though, I do lean towards Trump being a slightly safer option, while blindly assuming the checks & balances of the system keep working to control him for 4 years. My fear is that he'll ultimately end up with more power this time around and is able to get more crazy stuff through this time, potentially relating to the election process itself.

Based on the patterns I see, the election will probably end up with Trump as the winner. The country is being split as parties push further to the extremes, the past 6 election cycles starting with Bush bounce from republican to democrat each time, most of the country just wants to be in the center... so I think overall the people just keep getting pushed too far after 4 years of each party, and wanting to flip it back to try and get back to the center. People at the polls will probably just want another flip in parties, and I think that ends up being Trump this time around.

Harris has fallen slightly behind in many of the election models, but I have a feeling that the polls may be underrating her a bit. I think that when undecided voters go into the voting booth, a lot of them are going to view this as essentially "Trump vs The Mystery Box", and they're going to prefer The Mystery Box. Moreover, a lot of people are going to be relieved to have somebody to vote for who isn't a senile old man. Keep in mind that most undecided voters are also low-information voters, and don't know more than the bits and pieces of vague rumor that they've absorbed without trying.

So I think that Harris will win like this:


For the Senate I think it'll be 51-49 for Republicans, and for the House 218-217 for Democrats.

I like split government, where not much can get done, so that wouldn't be a terrible outcome. I think that Trump is slightly less-bad than Harris, so the ideal scenario would be for Trump to win the presidency, with Republicans in the Senate so that Trump can make conservative judicial appointments, but with Democrats in the House to try to block some of Trump's authoritarian and crazy instincts. This particular outcome isn't very likely, but it's not impossible.

Polls are very close, though, so anything's possible. If polls are as wrong as they were in 2016, then we could get either a huge Republican win or a huge Democratic win. (I don't see any reason to assume that if polls are very wrong, then they'll necessarily be wrong in Republicans' favor again.)

Well, given that many of us who comment in these threads start from very different positions and that the discussions lead to nothing, but to spend energy unnecessarily to reaffirm one's own position, I feel more like commenting on this, on the possible outcome, which is what this thread is about.

I have seen this election as pretty much 50/50, even at some point I thought I had a bit of a lead Kamala but I think now Trump is ahead and so seems to be the consensus, even if you watch some news channels that are more pro-Kamala. I could be wrong and a little biased about this, but this is what I think as of today, that Trump is more likely to win at this point.

Trump's rating has soared a lot, I think he will be the winner

Is not "kind of true" that you have free press. and you among all the other people here should not even mention it. You are publishing wall after walls of pseudoinformation and plain lies and there you are. Try that in Ruzzia which you seem to love so much (or are you there already?).

Again, logic is not your strong point. A dictatorship is an imposition of a minority, usually a small yet well armed minority, over a majority and it is so by definition. What did you think this was about? You are confusing Democracy (or for that matter what you call "Republic") with Anarchy. Democracy does have laws, does have a government and will force you to act within the laws agreed. It is utterly different from what you get in a Dictatorship.

If you need further details (I am really surprised I have to explain the basis of Democracy. Or perhaps not).

a) You are not a servant (you know... there was a war about that... does the 13th amendment and Abraham Lincoln sound familiar to you??). You are free except if convicted.

b) You have your individual liberties (e.g. free to keep posting shit), to a trial by your equals, fair application of laws...

c) You are free to put forward you views, create a party, put yourself forward as a candidate,..

An lastly, if you want to know the difference just become a citizen of NK.

Lol. Free press. Well, it's kinda true with all the independent media springing up, out there.

The freedom that exists is not Democracy. It's Republic. Voting in the Democracy is simply another way that the Republic tries to keep the Democracy from becoming too much of a Dictatorship.

The people who say that Democracy is not a Dictatorship either have not thought it through, or are part of the Dictatorship.

Why not prove your position that a Democracy is not a group Dictatorship by refuting the things that I say, as follows.
- The 51% beat the 49% in the voting, making the 49% servants to the 51%.
- Because the country is so big, and the 51% all have different ideas anyway, they set a small group in place to rule the country. That is what voting is all about.
- The small group does whatever they want, sometimes accidentally doing what some of the 51% want.
- Everybody bows to the small group to do their bidding - Group Dictatorship.

Isn't this what happens? Maybe not point blank in everything. But certainly in the big operations of the country. But even Stalin, in all the deaths he caused, didn't rule everything - the small activities - in his dictatorial activity.

Wake up. The reason the US has lasted as long as it has is not because it is a Democracy which is a Group Dictatorship. It's because it is a Republic... individual people rule.

This is starting to sound like a broken record. It is obvious you have not lived under an authoritarian regime.

No Democracy is not a group dictatorship - by definition is not a dictatorship. You have free press, you can choose what you tell your children (which does not happen under Communism unless you want to be sent to a gulag), you are free to speak and you have individual rights.

What is happening is that you would like to do something different from the majority but you and people like you are absolutely unable to convince others.  It would be time for you to reflect why you miserably fail to put forward anything convincing.

Talk about clueless, don't you realize, yet, that it was the West that set Communism in place in the USSR? So, what is better, Communism or the West that set it in place?

You are clueless about Democracy, as well. Democracy is simply about being ruled by a group-Dictatorship. Nobody except the rulers in a Democracy really wants war. So the leaders are like Communists. And they bring into the country all kinds of Communistic operations and laws.

You break my heart, but I am sure that now all those migrants and democrat voters will learn to respect you. I took a look around to see if I am making a mistake in my considerations about the way you think and found...


You are clueless about what Communism looks like, and yes ideologies such as Communism and killed many, perhaps more that the US trying to actually stop Communism. Or would you say the US foreign politics (what the heck, also the domestic policy) has not and does not kill people?

Equality is about equal opportunity for me, not about equal results for all. Equality in a wealthy society is about not leaving people behind. That is not Communism, it is a Capitalist system that creates a functional society. That matters - democracy holds while people hold it. Too many discontent and frustration and it will fall in the hands of people like...you know who.

Look paxmao, here is what I'm gonna do. I'm going to put you on a friendly ignore at least, I believe, until after the elections have passed. I think we start from such radically different points of view, and also that the way we are debating the discussion would end up escalating too much and this story I have already seen it too many times in this forum.


Can you summarize for me from the 119 pages those what it says about anything future Trump might do?


Tell that to those in the Democratic party, who are the ones who forced Biden to withdraw after the last debate, and yet no Republican even thinks of replacing Trump at this point. And about him being not fit, I don't see anything in that video that compares to Biden having trouble knowing where he is or getting hung up and left thinking without being able to articulate coherent argument.

Trump has a lot of things wrong with him, eh? I may be playing devil's advocate on some points here, but since we have already made a bet, we debate, but I don't want to defend Trump so much as many of his policies, which would be the same as the next candidate if he dies of a heart attack.

If you look through my posts you will see that already in the previous legislature I said that I liked his policies better than him, and his cocky tone that he thinks he is on the Apprentice. Nor have you seen me say that he lost the election by fraud.

Go back a few posts, I did not say that you said anything false. You said that I said something false.

When you ironize about the professional qualifications of migrants while speaking about crime, there is no other interpretation: you are clearly linking immigration and crime. You could have simply said that uncontrolled immigration is ... whatever you think it is - something that can actually be discussed.

When I show you the statistics that show pretty much the opposite, you insist that is not right -that. So, yes this is xenophobia by definition: "dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries." You are afraid of people from other cultures and countries despite having evidence supporting the opposite.

And lastly, since you have nothing rational to say, you decide that the problem is.... me.

But back to the argument: Uncontrolled immigration may cause problems sure. You cannot filter and choose who would you like in - as you cannot choose to throw out those that are not particularly productive or useful but have citizenship or permits (dude, the US has 1% of the population behind bars, it is much more than most rich countries).

The underlying problem is that you cannot put a wall against people who are flying the mafias, the drug cartels, the corrupt governments that do not protect them... They have little to loose. The US could be a force for good in Latin America, even if it is for its own benefit.

Controlling borders? It may simply not be possible, at most you will create a system of slavery and encourage the creation of mafias acting on your side of the border. Why not supporting people in their home countries and for those who arrive, creating a fast path to becoming productive members?