But you are conflating the purer politics of campaigning for national office with sound governance once in charge. The latter can’t happen without the former which has to be on a footing that gives the best chance of winning. Unfortunately, that rules out a wholly uncompromising position on many issues, including Israel/Palestine.
Seems awfully naive and not a little stupid to equate failing in the eyes of some on one particular issue with a lack of virtue overall.
If all you can do is dismiss any intrinsic value of VP Harris by merely contrasting her against Tr*mp, I’d say that like others here you’re uninformed about her in general, underinformed about her candidacy, and unqualified to make anything more than a meaningless contribution here, which seems a popular pastime for some right now.
I want to congratulate you on making @Enoch’s position even more ridiculous.
I took @Enoch to be saying that Harris is not an especially virtuous candidate, which is obviously true re Gaza for example, so under normal circumstances there would be no moral imperative to vote for her. That's not saying she's evil or without merit, only that she's not anything special as a candidate. What sets her apart is that she's facing Trump, and there absolutely is a moral imperative to defeat Trump, which therefore means voting for Harris as the only candidate capable of doing that.
Exactly. Thank you @ "Arethosemyfeet".
That's why I was so surprised to provoke such an outraged reaction. I had erroneously assumed that this thread was in Hell so that we could all be as offensive as we liked about the subject matter, rather than to each other.
I took @Enoch to be saying that Harris is not an especially virtuous candidate, which is obviously true re Gaza for example, so under normal circumstances there would be no moral imperative to vote for her. That's not saying she's evil or without merit, only that she's not anything special as a candidate.
But that's not actually true, is it? As a woman she has had to fight twice as hard to get where she is as a man with similar talents would have done.
And if you think misogyny plays no part in voters' decisions, I refer you to the result of the 2016 presidential election.
I speak as a citizen of a country that voted for Brexit and Boris Johnson, so not claiming any high ground here, moral or otherwise.
A hopefully encouraging item mentioned on the Guardian website here in the UK - Ms Harris is apparently ahead in the polls in the swing states of Wisconsin and Michigan.
With the usual caveat (polls are not always reliable!) is this significant?
On another note, there are vague hints about some *little secret* Trump is said to have up his sleeve, so to speak, which he presumably hopes will win him the election next week. Does anyone have any idea what this might be? I guess it's been mentioned rather more in US news than here.
A hopefully encouraging item mentioned on the Guardian website here in the UK - Ms Harris is apparently ahead in the polls in the swing states of Wisconsin and Michigan.
With the usual caveat (polls are not always reliable!) is this significant?
No. The Guardian discusses only one poll of Wisconsin and Michigan each, done by CNN. CNN says (scroll all the way down for this) the margin of sampling error is 4.8 for the Wisconsin poll and 4.7 for Michigan, and these polls are just a little outside that margin. More important, this is just one poll in each state. And on top of that, as you note, polling isn't reliable. It's been very wrong in both of the last two presidential elections. It is entirely possible that it will be very close or that one or the other candidate will win comfortably. As 538 points out:
In 2020, polls overestimated Biden's margin over Trump by about 4 percentage points in competitive states. As of Oct. 30 at 11:30 a.m. Eastern, the margin between Vice President Kamala Harris and Trump in 538's polling averages is smaller than 4 points in seven states: the familiar septet of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. That means that, if the polling error from 2020 repeats itself, Trump would win all seven swing states and 312 Electoral College votes.
...
In a scenario where the polls overestimate Trump's margin by 4 points in every state, Harris would win all seven swing states and 319 electoral votes.
And finally, even if Harris is ahead in Wisconsin and Michigan, she needs Pennsylvania as well to win in the Electoral College.
On another note, there are vague hints about some *little secret* Trump is said to have up his sleeve, so to speak, which he presumably hopes will win him the election next week. Does anyone have any idea what this might be? I guess it's been mentioned rather more in US news than here.
At his Nazi rally in Madison Square Garden, Trump said, "I think with our little secret we are gonna do really well with the House, our little secret is having a big impact, he and I have a little secret, we will tell you what it is when the race is over." "He" here is House Speaker Mike Johnson, who at first wouldn't say what Trump was referring to, and later said it's a get-out-the-vote effort to help Republicans keep the House. So chances are the "secret" has something to do with screwing with the certification of the election. You can read about the various possibilities in an opinion piece here.
{snip} Biden ended his candidacy so Harris could run. Some of you seem to need a Hallmark Movie version of American party politics, as if that's ever existed, or it did it'd present a some kind of purer, superior outcome, as if that could matter in any meaningful way. Jesus.
I thought Biden quite the race because he didn't have the support of his party. Yes, I know that meant Harris was likely to become the candidate but if Biden had wanted her to run for president why did he announce his candidacy for a second term? In any case, I thought he had said in the 2016 race that, given his age, he was always going to be a one term president.
I previously wrote:
Of course, if I'm wrong the outlook is no better, just different.
to which you responded
What a stupid take. The outlook is exponentially better. The aftermath of the election may be tenuous at first, but the ship will right. You don't look insightful by taking an under-informed, both-are-bad-choices take. Educate yourself for Christ's sake.
Perhaps I should have explained that I was anxious for there not to be a replay of the activities after the 2020 election. My bad - apologies.
but if Biden had wanted her to run for president why did he announce his candidacy for a second term?
His inner circle of family and trusted advisors was gaslighting him, telling him that he was doing a great job and was sure to win another term.
Just like they were gaslighting the media and the electorate right up till the day of the debate, telling everyone within earshot that he was still as sharp as a tack, and that any suggestion to the contrary was a loony right-wing conspiracy.
I took @Enoch to be saying that Harris is not an especially virtuous candidate, which is obviously true re Gaza for example, so under normal circumstances there would be no moral imperative to vote for her. That's not saying she's evil or without merit, only that she's not anything special as a candidate. What sets her apart is that she's facing Trump, and there absolutely is a moral imperative to defeat Trump, which therefore means voting for Harris as the only candidate capable of doing that.
but if Biden had wanted her to run for president why did he announce his candidacy for a second term?
His inner circle of family and trusted advisors was gaslighting him, telling him that he was doing a great job and was sure to win another term.
Just like they were gaslighting the media and the electorate right up till the day of the debate, telling everyone within earshot that he was still as sharp as a tack, and that any suggestion to the contrary was a loony right-wing conspiracy.
You're supporting Mr Orange Word Salad so pipe down; you haven't a leg to stand on.
{snip} Biden ended his candidacy so Harris could run. Some of you seem to need a Hallmark Movie version of American party politics, as if that's ever existed, or it did it'd present a some kind of purer, superior outcome, as if that could matter in any meaningful way. Jesus.
I thought Biden quite the race because he didn't have the support of his party. Yes, I know that meant Harris was likely to become the candidate but if Biden had wanted her to run for president why did he announce his candidacy for a second term? In any case, I thought he had said in the 2016 race that, given his age, he was always going to be a one term president.
Two things can be true at the same time. Biden dropped out of the race because leaders in the party helped him see he couldn’t win, and when he dropped out, he endorsed Harris, trying to forestall anyone else from vying for the spot.
And no, Biden never actually said he would be a one-term president. Some within his campaign said it, and he occasionally used language from which it could be inferred, but he never said it, much less pledged it.
I took @Enoch to be saying that Harris is not an especially virtuous candidate, which is obviously true re Gaza for example, so under normal circumstances there would be no moral imperative to vote for her. That's not saying she's evil or without merit, only that she's not anything special as a candidate.
But that's not actually true, is it? As a woman she has had to fight twice as hard to get where she is as a man with similar talents would have done.
And if you think misogyny plays no part in voters' decisions, I refer you to the result of the 2016 presidential election.
As a commentator on CNN put it recently, “Trump is allowed to be lawless, while Harris is expected to be flawless.”
Can we please use this thread for hating Trump, and not bashing each other?
Having been bashed, well and truly in a variety of Hell threads from times gone by, this is a surprising request from you.
Also, No.
Pointed potshots and colorful takedowns of the messenger, as well as the message, are in line with the greatest traditions of the Hell board. Remember St. Erin, and do likewise.
While this thread may have been started to vent about Trump (though I’m not sure what more can be said there), it seems to have provided a venue for some Americans to vent about the way some (not all) non-American shipmates opine about American politics and the election results without understanding what they’re opining about.
While this thread may have been started to vent about Trump (though I’m not sure what more can be said there), it seems to have provided a venue for some Americans to vent about the way some (not all) non-American shipmates opine about American politics and the election results without understanding what they’re opining about.
It's not at all clear that the claimed "lack of understanding" isn't just an excuse to not bother explaining why they disagree with a particular take.
Like, if we were saying "the US should just ban guns now" I could get that the fractal ignorance involved would be too much to deal with, but all @Enoch is saying is that Harris isn't that special of a candidate and doesn't need to be to make voting for her the only moral choice. Disagree? Fine, but it's not an unreasonable view or necessarily an ill-informed one.
@Enoch said: "There is no particular moral or ethical reason why a person should vote for Kamala Harris. She is just a candidate." Enoch went on to say that voting for Tr*mp was "wicked and sinful," which I'd suggest was on some level, immoral. In other words, voting for Harris was a vote against Tr*mps immorality, but not a vote in favor of Harris' default morality. I still think it's a shallow view that demonstrates informational voids re: Harris' person and platform. And weighing-in from the void is gonna get you flamed in Hell, or at least it used to, and FWIW it still should.
You, @Arethosemyfeet, interpreted Enoch's comment to mean, "Harris is not an especially virtuous candidate...(i.e. Gaza)" to which Enoch agreed. You also said that not being especially virtuous didn't mean she was "without merit," but meritorious examples didn't follow. So, out of the frying pan and into the fire. LOL.
It hasn't been lost on me that almost everyone in this thread is anti-Trump, and yes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but this election is a stressful, contentious thing (which is how the Right wants it, damn them.). I liken it to someone who's recovering from a terrible injury who has people all around them trying to help, but to the person who's recovering, while doing all they can not to re-injure themselves, the help can be frustrating, bothersome, redundant, too late, or attempted without considerations of varying kinds. Not quite to a "wounded animal is especially dangerous" level, but you get the idea. None of our non-American friends can actually make the prospect of a 2nd Tr*mp Administration any worse than we already understand it would be. So it's frustrating, bothersome, etc. including ridiculous for them to weigh-in from their voids. Don't do that. Instead, drag yourselves out of the voids so you can contribute something akin to the right kind of support.
I can admit to hating a few people, and I definitely dislike and have aversions to my fair share of humans to boot (MAGA members among them), but no one on these boards is in either of those categories (hate/dislike), and if my posts here in Hell cause anyone to wonder I can assure them that is the case.
but if Biden had wanted her to run for president why did he announce his candidacy for a second term?
His inner circle of family and trusted advisors was gaslighting him, telling him that he was doing a great job and was sure to win another term.
Just like they were gaslighting the media and the electorate right up till the day of the debate, telling everyone within earshot that he was still as sharp as a tack, and that any suggestion to the contrary was a loony right-wing conspiracy.
You're supporting Mr Orange Word Salad so pipe down; you haven't a leg to stand on.
Wait, @Powderkeg, please tell me this is hyperbole on the part of @Arethosemyfeet — you’re not really supporting Trump?? 😱
You can peruse @Powderkeg's previous comments here. I only glanced back, but I'm not sure if Powderkeg actually supports anything or anyone. He/she/they (sorry, but I have no idea which pronoun is preferred) jumped into the presidential election thread after not having been seen since the 2022 midterms, and has only posted sniping little criticisms.
Edit: Powderkeg might not even have a vote in this election -- grew up in British Columbia. But maybe was born in the US or later naturalized.
I am guilty of commenting about British, Canadian, and Australian politics on the ship from a position of relative ignorance. I hope no one tells me to STFU! I’m not endorsing anything anyone has said on this thread - just saying that this American at least is understanding of the concern and perplexity that outsiders might be feeling right now.
No one's going to tell you to STFU in Purgatory. And I doubt very much you're making sweeping and stupid statements along the lines of there being no moral or ethical reason to vote for Harris.
I accept that as a foreigner, I know very little about US elections or politics.
Then just shut the fuck up.
Are you saying then that you likewise disagree with and oppose on the grounds either that they are wrong or that it's none of their business, the contribution from the Marsh Family which @Gracious Rebel linked to.
I don't know what your take is on this forthcoming election, but I can assure you that much of world opinion (i.e. outside the United States) agrees with what the Marsh Family have expressed in music. Perhaps we have all been misunderstanding it but 'the rest of us' are desperately worried about and deeply sympathetic to the situation you all face. It is quite upsetting to be told off for saying this with quite your blunt language.
I frankly don't care if it upsets you. I'm fed up to the back teeth with people from other places who don't know a goddamn thing about the US holding forth about the situation here. That some non-US shipmates are able to take quite well-informed positions about the US shows that it can be done.
I didn't watch the video.
There are US Shipmates who make sweeping comments about UK politics. The big difference is the UK news reports a lot on the US as a whole, elections in particular. With a decent amount of analysis. Whilst in principle you are correct in practice I think we understand more than you seem to think we do. Certainly those of us who take an interest seem to know more than you infer. As I understand it from my US friends the news over there is less international. It showed when a US presenter at a royal event didn’t recognise the Prime Minister.
We are more aware than you make us out to be.
I think @Ruth has been very clear that there are shipmates in the UK who are very well informed about US politics. She has cited that as proof that it’s quite possible not to live here and yet have a good understanding of what’s going on here. She has also been clear that her complaint is about those non-American shipmates whose posts demonstrate little real understanding.
@Hugal, Brits hear or read about the US frequently because UK news outlets regularly report on the US, so you all think you know what you're talking about, but in general British knowledge of the US tends to be superficial and more than a little bit colored by a basic distaste for American culture.* Is this universal? By no means. For instance, when alienfromzog posts about the election, I pay attention; to me he's the epitome of the well-informed outsider who sometimes points out things I hadn't considered. But the general idea that UK folks know about the US because UK news covers the US is underbaked. (Also, as I'm sure you're aware, plenty of UK news really sucks.)
You're over-confident, Hugal -- it shows in your telling me about the difference between UK news and US news, as if I didn't know, as if I never looked at UK news outlets. I read UK news outlets to get non-US coverage of the world and also of the US. The Guardian in particular I think covers the US well. For instance, today there's a good piece about the Orange County, California congressional races, which are crucial to Democrats' chances of taking back the House. While it's a very good piece, I can still tell you more things about these races and their context that you'd need to know if you really want to understand them:
1. It doesn't mention that Democrats took all the Orange County seats in the 2018 Blue Wave election, completing an historic flip of the county; they're trying to claw back seats they previously held.
2. The Steel vs. Tran race in the 45th has relevant background that's not discussed. The guy who won this seat for the Dems in 2018 did nothing once he got into Congress; the son of a friend of mine worked for him and was utterly disgusted that the guy didn't want to do anything and wasted the opportunity. How much he was really a Democrat I would seriously question, as he only registered as a Democrat after Trump was elected. This gets at an important issue in California -- because the Republicans are so weak at the state level, if you have political ambition, in most of the state you'll do better if you're a Democrat, so the range of the political beliefs of the people running as Democrats has gotten bigger and bigger, to the point where Democratic strength at the state level is yielding up weaker Democratic candidates.
3. It says Katie Porter vacated her OC Congressional seat to run for Senate but "fell short" in the primary. But she didn't fall short so much as she was kneecapped by fellow Democrat Adam Schiff, who gave Steve Garvey a huge boost by singling him out as "too conservative" in the primary, thus consolidating the Republican vote for Garvey and making sure Katie Porter, who could have really challenged him in November, wouldn't make it that far. So a very strong OC Democrat is nowhere on the ballot, thanks to the political machinations of another Democrat.
4. It briefly mentions taxes, but taxes are really important. Californians pay high taxes to the state, and Republicans are kind of stuck with that since Democrats have all the power in the state capital, so California Republicans are highly motivated to get their federal taxes down as much as possible.
None of this is to say that The Guardian's piece is bad. It is in fact excellent. But I've lived and voted in southern California my whole adult life. I'm seeing the nasty political ads aimed at Orange County voters every time I turn on the TV to watch baseball. I lived in Orange County 1984-1993, when Democrats couldn't get elected to save their souls, I can walk over the county line from where I live now, and my best friend lives in Huntington Beach, the OC town called "radical" for book banning. You cannot simply read the UK coverage of the US and know what Americans know. Chances are the guy who wrote the Guardian piece does know the things I talked about -- he lives in Los Angeles and has been based in the US for over 25 years -- but here's another limitation of relying on the news instead of first-hand experience: news reports are by necessity too short to tell you what people learn through years of lived experience.
*You're probably not aware of how often Brits on the Ship say things that essentially mean "Ew, it's American," but dear god, yes, we decorate for Halloween and kids go trick-or-treating and it's a big deal and it's fun, a lot of us are perfectly happy and successful baking with cup measures, we're sticking with miles, feet and inches, and yes, it's the goddamn World Series and I don't give a flying fuck that it's not an international contest.
I feel a great deal of sympathy for American posters based on all the times I've wanted to pat with a brick the people who've asked 'What is the solution to The Troubles?' (As if I fucking knew).
You just want to say the whole time It's Not That Simple.
Tomorrow I hope to be planting bulbs. Because that's all you can do - affirm a future come what may.
I took @Enoch to be saying that Harris is not an especially virtuous candidate, which is obviously true re Gaza for example, so under normal circumstances there would be no moral imperative to vote for her. That's not saying she's evil or without merit, only that she's not anything special as a candidate.
But that's not actually true, is it? As a woman she has had to fight twice as hard to get where she is as a man with similar talents would have done.
That's possible; but that doesn't necessarily automatically map to being a particularly outstanding candidate. In 2019 when competing against her peers, her presidential run peaked at around 15% and was below 5% when she withdrew, behind - among others - Elizabeth Warren, indicating registered supporters held similar sentiments.
And if you think misogyny plays no part in voters' decisions
Of course it does, but not every criticism of Harris' stems from misogyny.
In 2019 when competing against her peers, her presidential run peaked at around 15% and was below 5% when she withdrew, behind - among others - Elizabeth Warren, indicating registered supporters held similar sentiments.
That was then, this is now. Timing matters, as does context. There is no such thing as a universal "good candidate" -- good candidates meet their moments.
Harris was ill-suited to the mood of Democrats toward the end of the Trump presidency. She was considered a first-tier candidate for president because she had gained attention while grilling Trump appointees and representatives in Senate hearings. (She was elected to the Senate from California in a landslide, by the way, against another Democrat -- I among many others thought she was a good candidate.) But she came up as a law-and-order Democrat, a former prosecutor who had won a district attorney's office by saying she'd convict more bad guys than the incumbent, and nationally Democrats didn't want that in 2019 -- ACAB, etc. Democrats were thinking big and liberal, and she had been tough on crime in California and had defended the death penalty. Plus she didn't like talking about her personal story and experiences, something she has since learned to do (I don't remember her talking about her mom at all when she was running for senator, but now she does, and it works on the campaign trail). Also, on the national stage five years ago, she was confusing: Black and female, but tough on crime -- it didn't compute for people.
Now it computes, because now Trump is a felon, and now Roe v Wade has been overturned. It's not tough on crime vs Black and female, she's tough on crime and Black and female. And she has learned to take the factual brass tacks she was always good at talking about as a prosecutor and use them in weaving a larger narrative that people can get behind and feel good about. She has taken back the ideas of freedom and patriotism from Republicans and given Democrats and independents something to vote for, when in July we all thought we'd be dragging ourselves to the polls to vote for a guy who might not be able to organize his thoughts by the middle of his second term.
No, she didn't do well in 2019. But now, today, she is an outstanding candidate. She brought together a party that traditionally comes together like the proverbial herd of cats. She has run a near-flawless campaign. She has done in about 100 days what most presidential candidates take over a year on the campaign trail to do: hone and deliver a message. And she might win. It's unprecedented in modern American politics. It's a near miracle.
To add to what Ruth said: Also I think some of us--like me--were unfair to her in 2019. I got told she was basically a cop by activist friends and just accepted it. But looking back, she was a much more nuanced (and fair) prosecutor than I gave her credit for. I think quite a few of us admitted we had unfairly dismissed her and were more ready to look again.
I mean, Blame Biden if you want to look like a moronic asshat, sure.
Sam applies to you as you have no idea what I am on about.
Hey @Ruth, Telford here would like us to know that his contingent of Brits doesn’t think either candidate for POTUS is any good. It’s that simple. That, and if Tr*mp wins it’s President Biden’s fault. These things stem from his “interest,” which I have no doubt includes the revelation that US policy, influence & leadership affect the wider world and not just the Lower 48. (Sorry, I was supposed to yell “Surprise!” before dropping that truth bomb. A lot of people don’t know that, see.) Anyway, I knew you’d want to take these insights under advisement, pearls that they are.
Given how other UK shipmates respond to his posts, I'd say Telford doesn't understand what's going on in his own country, never mind anyone else's. I am sadly not surprised at his failure to distinguish between a candidate who believes in American democracy and one who would casually toss it into the trash truck he was riding around in, a perfect emblem of his campaign.
I generally prefer outright aggression to passive aggression, but perhaps we could just thank Telford for his "interest"? And then either you, @The_Riv, or @Nick Tamen could issue the coup de grace by saying "bless his heart."
If Trump wins, blame Biden. He should have announced one term only last year
Yeah, no. It’s much more complicated than that. But thanks for another example of the uninformed/under-informed opinion.
TBF Telford is equally uninformed and prone to stupid remarks about UK politics.
@Ruth I take your point about nothing beating on the ground information, but it seems to me that while you're clearly more well-informed about Orange County, it doesn't follow that you're automatically well-informed about, say, the politics of Kansas because (again, barring personal familiarity) you're relying on news sources same as us.
If Trump wins, blame Biden. He should have announced one term only last year
Yeah, no. It’s much more complicated than that. But thanks for another example of the uninformed/under-informed opinion.
You need to know that some of us in the UK are very interested in the election . . .
And you need to know that I do know that. Perhaps you need to know that “interested in” and “informed about” are not synonymous.
. . . and think that neither candidate is any good
I’m not sure “think” is the best word to use when there’s no evidence of actual thinking going on. But I’m sure you’re doing the best you can, bless your heart.
If Trump wins, blame Biden. He should have announced one term only last year
Yeah, no. It’s much more complicated than that. But thanks for another example of the uninformed/under-informed opinion.
You need to know that some of us in the UK are very interested in the election . . .
And you need to know that I do know that. Perhaps you need to know that “interested in” and “informed about” are not synonymous.
. . . and think that neither candidate is any good
I’m not sure “think” is the best word to use when there’s no evidence of actual thinking going on. But I’m sure you’re doing the best you can, bless your heart.
If Trump wins, blame Biden. He should have announced one term only last year
Yeah, no. It’s much more complicated than that. But thanks for another example of the uninformed/under-informed opinion.
You need to know that some of us in the UK are very interested in the election . . .
And you need to know that I do know that. Perhaps you need to know that “interested in” and “informed about” are not synonymous.
. . . and think that neither candidate is any good
I’m not sure “think” is the best word to use when there’s no evidence of actual thinking going on. But I’m sure you’re doing the best you can, bless your heart.
Last night, Trump referred to Liz Cheney as a radical warhawk and wondered how she would feel if she had guns trained on her face--as in a firing line.
Cheney responded this is a typical way for dictators to intimidate their opponents--threaten them with death.
I think he feels since he "has it in the bag" he can get away saying anything he wants.
It's not hard to find absolutist, Left-wing, one-issue voters. There's a pretty big, painfully clear difference between the way Harris and the Democrat Party view and address the issues of LQBTQIA+ people and how Tr*mp and the MAGA Right approach them. The Twitter poster you cited makes that distinction, and indicates their support is placed via that rubric. Smart enough, but there's not a little use of hyperbole, which isn't unusual for such a voter. Fine -- acutely personal issues foster intense exchanges. That energy is important, and necessary for affecting change, but the rhetorical tactic can be off-putting, even to allies. Another shortcoming, IMO, is the rather preachy idea that their vote needs to, but has not been "earned." This kind of sanctimony may work well in the echo chambers of a one-issue community, but those voters are, I think, short-sighted in terms of what team dynamics need to be, not just to take the lead in, but hold the lead and eventually change a much broader, longer game.
I mean, Blame Biden if you want to look like a moronic asshat, sure.
Sam applies to you as you have no idea what I am on about.
Look, you're barely worth ridiculing on this topic. Regardless, your heart has been blessed by a bone-fide American Southerner (well done, @Nick Tamen), and so you should just call that a win and sod all the way off. Then sod off again. And again.
If Trump wins, blame Biden. He should have announced one term only last year
Yeah, no. It’s much more complicated than that. But thanks for another example of the uninformed/under-informed opinion.
You need to know that some of us in the UK are very interested in the election . . .
And you need to know that I do know that. Perhaps you need to know that “interested in” and “informed about” are not synonymous.
. . . and think that neither candidate is any good
I’m not sure “think” is the best word to use when there’s no evidence of actual thinking going on. But I’m sure you’re doing the best you can, bless your heart.
It's not hard to find absolutist, Left-wing, one-issue voters. There's a pretty big, painfully clear difference between the way Harris and the Democrat Party view and address the issues of LQBTQIA+ people and how Tr*mp and the MAGA Right approach them. The Twitter poster you cited makes that distinction, and indicates their support is placed via that rubric. Smart enough, but there's not a little use of hyperbole, which isn't unusual for such a voter. Fine -- acutely personal issues foster intense exchanges. That energy is important, and necessary for affecting change, but the rhetorical tactic can be off-putting, even to allies. Another shortcoming, IMO, is the rather preachy idea that their vote needs to, but has not been "earned." This kind of sanctimony may work well in the echo chambers of a one-issue community, but those voters are, I think, short-sighted in terms of what team dynamics need to be, not just to take the lead in, but hold the lead and eventually change a much broader, longer game.
I mean, Blame Biden if you want to look like a moronic asshat, sure.
Sam applies to you as you have no idea what I am on about.
Look, you're barely worth ridiculing on this topic. Regardless, your heart has been blessed by a bone-fide American Southerner (well done, @Nick Tamen), and so you should just call that a win and sod all the way off. Then sod off again. And again.
You ridicule me and eight years ago, you lot elected a president with no political experience. Just think on that.
If Trump wins, blame Biden. He should have announced one term only last year
Yeah, no. It’s much more complicated than that. But thanks for another example of the uninformed/under-informed opinion.
You need to know that some of us in the UK are very interested in the election . . .
And you need to know that I do know that. Perhaps you need to know that “interested in” and “informed about” are not synonymous.
. . . and think that neither candidate is any good
I’m not sure “think” is the best word to use when there’s no evidence of actual thinking going on. But I’m sure you’re doing the best you can, bless your heart.
Says a man in the country that delivered Brexit and Boris Johnson
I have no idea why you have introduced UK politics in this thread but I will merely reply with this ...
Brexit was the democratic will of the people. Opposition to it's implimentation was undemocratic. Johnson was elected with 42.4% of the vote. Starmer has been elected with just 33.7% of the vote. End of.
Says a man in the country that delivered Brexit and Boris Johnson
Brexit was the democratic will of the people. Opposition to it's implimentation was undemocratic. Johnson was elected with 42.4% of the vote. Starmer has been elected with just 33.7% of the vote.
O gods. Here we go again...why, I thought it was the likes of Trump and Putin who regard opposition as undemocratic...
BTW, I realise Ms Harris has a lot to think about just now, but I wonder if she knows that there are many people in the UK who are supporting her, even if only morally, as they have no vote in the US?
Comments
Seems awfully naive and not a little stupid to equate failing in the eyes of some on one particular issue with a lack of virtue overall.
If all you can do is dismiss any intrinsic value of VP Harris by merely contrasting her against Tr*mp, I’d say that like others here you’re uninformed about her in general, underinformed about her candidacy, and unqualified to make anything more than a meaningless contribution here, which seems a popular pastime for some right now.
I want to congratulate you on making @Enoch’s position even more ridiculous.
That's why I was so surprised to provoke such an outraged reaction. I had erroneously assumed that this thread was in Hell so that we could all be as offensive as we liked about the subject matter, rather than to each other.
But that's not actually true, is it? As a woman she has had to fight twice as hard to get where she is as a man with similar talents would have done.
And if you think misogyny plays no part in voters' decisions, I refer you to the result of the 2016 presidential election.
I speak as a citizen of a country that voted for Brexit and Boris Johnson, so not claiming any high ground here, moral or otherwise.
With the usual caveat (polls are not always reliable!) is this significant?
On another note, there are vague hints about some *little secret* Trump is said to have up his sleeve, so to speak, which he presumably hopes will win him the election next week. Does anyone have any idea what this might be? I guess it's been mentioned rather more in US news than here.
At his Nazi rally in Madison Square Garden, Trump said, "I think with our little secret we are gonna do really well with the House, our little secret is having a big impact, he and I have a little secret, we will tell you what it is when the race is over." "He" here is House Speaker Mike Johnson, who at first wouldn't say what Trump was referring to, and later said it's a get-out-the-vote effort to help Republicans keep the House. So chances are the "secret" has something to do with screwing with the certification of the election. You can read about the various possibilities in an opinion piece here.
I thought Biden quite the race because he didn't have the support of his party. Yes, I know that meant Harris was likely to become the candidate but if Biden had wanted her to run for president why did he announce his candidacy for a second term? In any case, I thought he had said in the 2016 race that, given his age, he was always going to be a one term president.
I previously wrote: to which you responded Perhaps I should have explained that I was anxious for there not to be a replay of the activities after the 2020 election. My bad - apologies.
His inner circle of family and trusted advisors was gaslighting him, telling him that he was doing a great job and was sure to win another term.
Just like they were gaslighting the media and the electorate right up till the day of the debate, telling everyone within earshot that he was still as sharp as a tack, and that any suggestion to the contrary was a loony right-wing conspiracy.
That’s what I took him to mean.
Amen!!
You're supporting Mr Orange Word Salad so pipe down; you haven't a leg to stand on.
And no, Biden never actually said he would be a one-term president. Some within his campaign said it, and he occasionally used language from which it could be inferred, but he never said it, much less pledged it.
As a commentator on CNN put it recently, “Trump is allowed to be lawless, while Harris is expected to be flawless.”
Also, No.
Pointed potshots and colorful takedowns of the messenger, as well as the message, are in line with the greatest traditions of the Hell board. Remember St. Erin, and do likewise.
It's not at all clear that the claimed "lack of understanding" isn't just an excuse to not bother explaining why they disagree with a particular take.
Like, if we were saying "the US should just ban guns now" I could get that the fractal ignorance involved would be too much to deal with, but all @Enoch is saying is that Harris isn't that special of a candidate and doesn't need to be to make voting for her the only moral choice. Disagree? Fine, but it's not an unreasonable view or necessarily an ill-informed one.
You, @Arethosemyfeet, interpreted Enoch's comment to mean, "Harris is not an especially virtuous candidate...(i.e. Gaza)" to which Enoch agreed. You also said that not being especially virtuous didn't mean she was "without merit," but meritorious examples didn't follow. So, out of the frying pan and into the fire. LOL.
It hasn't been lost on me that almost everyone in this thread is anti-Trump, and yes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but this election is a stressful, contentious thing (which is how the Right wants it, damn them.). I liken it to someone who's recovering from a terrible injury who has people all around them trying to help, but to the person who's recovering, while doing all they can not to re-injure themselves, the help can be frustrating, bothersome, redundant, too late, or attempted without considerations of varying kinds. Not quite to a "wounded animal is especially dangerous" level, but you get the idea. None of our non-American friends can actually make the prospect of a 2nd Tr*mp Administration any worse than we already understand it would be. So it's frustrating, bothersome, etc. including ridiculous for them to weigh-in from their voids. Don't do that. Instead, drag yourselves out of the voids so you can contribute something akin to the right kind of support.
I can admit to hating a few people, and I definitely dislike and have aversions to my fair share of humans to boot (MAGA members among them), but no one on these boards is in either of those categories (hate/dislike), and if my posts here in Hell cause anyone to wonder I can assure them that is the case.
Wait, @Powderkeg, please tell me this is hyperbole on the part of @Arethosemyfeet — you’re not really supporting Trump?? 😱
Edit: Powderkeg might not even have a vote in this election -- grew up in British Columbia. But maybe was born in the US or later naturalized.
There are US Shipmates who make sweeping comments about UK politics. The big difference is the UK news reports a lot on the US as a whole, elections in particular. With a decent amount of analysis. Whilst in principle you are correct in practice I think we understand more than you seem to think we do. Certainly those of us who take an interest seem to know more than you infer. As I understand it from my US friends the news over there is less international. It showed when a US presenter at a royal event didn’t recognise the Prime Minister.
We are more aware than you make us out to be.
You're over-confident, Hugal -- it shows in your telling me about the difference between UK news and US news, as if I didn't know, as if I never looked at UK news outlets. I read UK news outlets to get non-US coverage of the world and also of the US. The Guardian in particular I think covers the US well. For instance, today there's a good piece about the Orange County, California congressional races, which are crucial to Democrats' chances of taking back the House. While it's a very good piece, I can still tell you more things about these races and their context that you'd need to know if you really want to understand them:
1. It doesn't mention that Democrats took all the Orange County seats in the 2018 Blue Wave election, completing an historic flip of the county; they're trying to claw back seats they previously held.
2. The Steel vs. Tran race in the 45th has relevant background that's not discussed. The guy who won this seat for the Dems in 2018 did nothing once he got into Congress; the son of a friend of mine worked for him and was utterly disgusted that the guy didn't want to do anything and wasted the opportunity. How much he was really a Democrat I would seriously question, as he only registered as a Democrat after Trump was elected. This gets at an important issue in California -- because the Republicans are so weak at the state level, if you have political ambition, in most of the state you'll do better if you're a Democrat, so the range of the political beliefs of the people running as Democrats has gotten bigger and bigger, to the point where Democratic strength at the state level is yielding up weaker Democratic candidates.
3. It says Katie Porter vacated her OC Congressional seat to run for Senate but "fell short" in the primary. But she didn't fall short so much as she was kneecapped by fellow Democrat Adam Schiff, who gave Steve Garvey a huge boost by singling him out as "too conservative" in the primary, thus consolidating the Republican vote for Garvey and making sure Katie Porter, who could have really challenged him in November, wouldn't make it that far. So a very strong OC Democrat is nowhere on the ballot, thanks to the political machinations of another Democrat.
4. It briefly mentions taxes, but taxes are really important. Californians pay high taxes to the state, and Republicans are kind of stuck with that since Democrats have all the power in the state capital, so California Republicans are highly motivated to get their federal taxes down as much as possible.
None of this is to say that The Guardian's piece is bad. It is in fact excellent. But I've lived and voted in southern California my whole adult life. I'm seeing the nasty political ads aimed at Orange County voters every time I turn on the TV to watch baseball. I lived in Orange County 1984-1993, when Democrats couldn't get elected to save their souls, I can walk over the county line from where I live now, and my best friend lives in Huntington Beach, the OC town called "radical" for book banning. You cannot simply read the UK coverage of the US and know what Americans know. Chances are the guy who wrote the Guardian piece does know the things I talked about -- he lives in Los Angeles and has been based in the US for over 25 years -- but here's another limitation of relying on the news instead of first-hand experience: news reports are by necessity too short to tell you what people learn through years of lived experience.
*You're probably not aware of how often Brits on the Ship say things that essentially mean "Ew, it's American," but dear god, yes, we decorate for Halloween and kids go trick-or-treating and it's a big deal and it's fun, a lot of us are perfectly happy and successful baking with cup measures, we're sticking with miles, feet and inches, and yes, it's the goddamn World Series and I don't give a flying fuck that it's not an international contest.
You just want to say the whole time It's Not That Simple.
Tomorrow I hope to be planting bulbs. Because that's all you can do - affirm a future come what may.
That's possible; but that doesn't necessarily automatically map to being a particularly outstanding candidate. In 2019 when competing against her peers, her presidential run peaked at around 15% and was below 5% when she withdrew, behind - among others - Elizabeth Warren, indicating registered supporters held similar sentiments.
Of course it does, but not every criticism of Harris' stems from misogyny.
That was then, this is now. Timing matters, as does context. There is no such thing as a universal "good candidate" -- good candidates meet their moments.
Harris was ill-suited to the mood of Democrats toward the end of the Trump presidency. She was considered a first-tier candidate for president because she had gained attention while grilling Trump appointees and representatives in Senate hearings. (She was elected to the Senate from California in a landslide, by the way, against another Democrat -- I among many others thought she was a good candidate.) But she came up as a law-and-order Democrat, a former prosecutor who had won a district attorney's office by saying she'd convict more bad guys than the incumbent, and nationally Democrats didn't want that in 2019 -- ACAB, etc. Democrats were thinking big and liberal, and she had been tough on crime in California and had defended the death penalty. Plus she didn't like talking about her personal story and experiences, something she has since learned to do (I don't remember her talking about her mom at all when she was running for senator, but now she does, and it works on the campaign trail). Also, on the national stage five years ago, she was confusing: Black and female, but tough on crime -- it didn't compute for people.
Now it computes, because now Trump is a felon, and now Roe v Wade has been overturned. It's not tough on crime vs Black and female, she's tough on crime and Black and female. And she has learned to take the factual brass tacks she was always good at talking about as a prosecutor and use them in weaving a larger narrative that people can get behind and feel good about. She has taken back the ideas of freedom and patriotism from Republicans and given Democrats and independents something to vote for, when in July we all thought we'd be dragging ourselves to the polls to vote for a guy who might not be able to organize his thoughts by the middle of his second term.
No, she didn't do well in 2019. But now, today, she is an outstanding candidate. She brought together a party that traditionally comes together like the proverbial herd of cats. She has run a near-flawless campaign. She has done in about 100 days what most presidential candidates take over a year on the campaign trail to do: hone and deliver a message. And she might win. It's unprecedented in modern American politics. It's a near miracle.
Their name is Legion.
You need to know that some of us in the UK are very interested in the election and think that neither candidate is any good
Sam applies to you as you have no idea what I am on about.
Hey @Ruth, Telford here would like us to know that his contingent of Brits doesn’t think either candidate for POTUS is any good. It’s that simple. That, and if Tr*mp wins it’s President Biden’s fault. These things stem from his “interest,” which I have no doubt includes the revelation that US policy, influence & leadership affect the wider world and not just the Lower 48. (Sorry, I was supposed to yell “Surprise!” before dropping that truth bomb. A lot of people don’t know that, see.) Anyway, I knew you’d want to take these insights under advisement, pearls that they are.
I generally prefer outright aggression to passive aggression, but perhaps we could just thank Telford for his "interest"? And then either you, @The_Riv, or @Nick Tamen could issue the coup de grace by saying "bless his heart."
TBF Telford is equally uninformed and prone to stupid remarks about UK politics.
@Ruth I take your point about nothing beating on the ground information, but it seems to me that while you're clearly more well-informed about Orange County, it doesn't follow that you're automatically well-informed about, say, the politics of Kansas because (again, barring personal familiarity) you're relying on news sources same as us.
https://x.com/Billieiswriting/status/1852025303960314112?t=gn-qYQAqjb5AamTewroAGw&s=19
is why I'm not enamoured of Harris, but I understand (as the author does) why her campaign is behaving this way. It's just hard to see people justly terrified of Trump but knowing the alternative doesn't actually have their backs either.
I’m not sure “think” is the best word to use when there’s no evidence of actual thinking going on. But I’m sure you’re doing the best you can, bless your heart.
(For you, @Ruth.
I was wrong. You lot have clearly chosen two excellent candidates for this two horse race.
Stop being a wind up merchant for a few days at least, would you please?
Cheney responded this is a typical way for dictators to intimidate their opponents--threaten them with death.
I think he feels since he "has it in the bag" he can get away saying anything he wants.
It's not hard to find absolutist, Left-wing, one-issue voters. There's a pretty big, painfully clear difference between the way Harris and the Democrat Party view and address the issues of LQBTQIA+ people and how Tr*mp and the MAGA Right approach them. The Twitter poster you cited makes that distinction, and indicates their support is placed via that rubric. Smart enough, but there's not a little use of hyperbole, which isn't unusual for such a voter. Fine -- acutely personal issues foster intense exchanges. That energy is important, and necessary for affecting change, but the rhetorical tactic can be off-putting, even to allies. Another shortcoming, IMO, is the rather preachy idea that their vote needs to, but has not been "earned." This kind of sanctimony may work well in the echo chambers of a one-issue community, but those voters are, I think, short-sighted in terms of what team dynamics need to be, not just to take the lead in, but hold the lead and eventually change a much broader, longer game.
Look, you're barely worth ridiculing on this topic. Regardless, your heart has been blessed by a bone-fide American Southerner (well done, @Nick Tamen), and so you should just call that a win and sod all the way off. Then sod off again. And again.
I made what I considered to be a relevant comment. I was attacked and you have joined them.
You ridicule me and eight years ago, you lot elected a president with no political experience. Just think on that.
No, you didn't. There's no way even you think Trump is an "excellent" candidate. You're trying to be funny and it's not the time, even in Hell.
I have no idea why you have introduced UK politics in this thread but I will merely reply with this ...
Brexit was the democratic will of the people. Opposition to it's implimentation was undemocratic. Johnson was elected with 42.4% of the vote. Starmer has been elected with just 33.7% of the vote. End of.
O gods. Here we go again...why, I thought it was the likes of Trump and Putin who regard opposition as undemocratic...
BTW, I realise Ms Harris has a lot to think about just now, but I wonder if she knows that there are many people in the UK who are supporting her, even if only morally, as they have no vote in the US?