USA Kamala Harris the 47th President of the United States - Hopefully.

[Fire]

...and finally, why do you think it is "odd" to want to comment on an election which is a turning point in history? I have made that point several times in my posts on that thread

You love to talk about yourself a lot, but we generally don't have the same level of interest in reading it.

 

[Present Not Past]

You placed a photograph of a goat as some kind of "response" to me.
Then you are confused by a response from me that wonders wtf you mean?

Anyway, yes, let's stop before I get suspended again.

You get suspended with or without my help.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Well thankyou. That does illuminate for me the guiding principles here.
You have to believe that the result of this election will stabilise US conditions, or at least not comment about the future implications, in order to qualify for posting on that thread.

Hard to get one's head around the compartmentalisation here.

More that it’s staying on the immediate impact of Harris being 47th president rather than your main apparent preferred topic (the worldwide socialist revolution) which is more for a socialism thread. Though trying to promote a specific socialist candidate in the USA election thread (the trump v Harris) has some relevance, I’d guess repeat posting without new information would also be a question of relevance. That’s my 2c

 

[Not Important]

this is graphic. it’s beyond comprehension how any woman or any man who cares about the women in his life would even entertain voting for the deranged rapist, narcissist, and convicted criminal. also like the way michelle mostly refers to him just as “trump”

 

[Not Important]

put so succinctly and directly by the veteran journalist - a genuine journo in his active years.

 

[Not Important]

yep! not one.

 

[Not Important]

 

[happy_eagle]

Who gives a flying **** what Richard Gere has to say.

Endorsements from Taylor Swift I understand.

But does every ****ing celebrity need to be doing this self serving exercise?

 

[Not Important]

Who gives a flying **** what Richard Gere has to say.

Endorsements from Taylor Swift I understand.

But does every ****ing celebrity need to be doing this self serving exercise?

i posted a research piece on the value of celebrity endorsement in a thread a while back. it showed it can have a positive effect on voting intentions. also, there was a report on pbs a while back that showed that in the days following the taylor swift endorsement, 100,000 people enrolled to vote. so.....

 

[happy_eagle]

i posted a research piece on the value of celebrity endorsement in a thread a while back. it showed it can have a positive effect on voting intentions. also, there was a report on pbs a while back that showed that in the days following the taylor swift endorsement, 100,000 people enrolled to vote. so.....

Richard Gere is not moving the needle

 

[Not Important]

Richard Gere is not moving the needle

maybe. but, again, on the general question of celebrity endorsement, which was the substance of your pot shot, it can.

edit:

Taylor Swift, Billie Eilish, Kerry Washington and More Celebs Play ‘Influential’ Role in Voter Turnout, Says Harvard Study

Celebrities like Taylor Swift and Trevor Noah play an "influential" role in promoting civic engagement in the U.S. and is "positive" for their brand.

variety.com

 

[kane249]

Richard Gere is not moving the needle

Might capture the niche Gerbil enthusiasts vote

 

[Maggie5]

Richard Gere is not moving the needle

I believe Swift has by the record number of new enrollments.
Also Puerto Ricans stars speaking out and in their own language have.

 

[King Patty]

Taylor swift was massive endorsement.
the others not so much, seems more celebs adding their piece this year.
Joe Rogan nominating trump, but imagine his audience would have leaned that way anyway.

Then you have all the Diddy associated celebs backing Harris, but they also backed Democrats previously so hardly controversial news.

 

[swingdog]

Taylor swift was massive endorsement.
the others not so much, seems more celebs adding their piece this year.
Joe Rogan nominating trump, but imagine his audience would have leaned that way anyway.

Then you have all the Diddy associated celebs backing Harris, but they also backed Democrats previously so hardly controversial news.

And....

 

[King Patty]

Trump's hardly going to endorse Harris.

But he was a former Democrat along with Elon

 

[swingdog]

Trump's hardly going to endorse Harris.

 

[GreyCrow]

Joe Rogan nominating trump, but imagine his audience would have leaned that way anyway.

I find this one odd. Not odd that it was a blindside but that he did it so late

I understand there were media considerations ie getting Harris on the show etc but to wait until 24 hours before voting? Odd

 

[EagleShore]

You've put a hell of a lot of effort into that post, but it's actually really simple.

Harris is pretty ordinary.

Trump is appalling.

So, who to vote for?

Gee, lemme think this one through....

So instead of actually looking at the respective policies and agendas, you would vote on the basis of an assessment of the relative personalities of the leaders? I suppose many people fall into that category.

I would probably consider note voting, but would favour identifying an independent candidate offering a better range of policies and vote for that candidate or party.

So for those who would not look to an independent, or if they deemed there were no decent independent in terms of policies, and they would rather vote than abstain, it would behove the American population to consider the differences in the respective policies put forward by the Democrats compared to the Republicans.

Applying that lens, and as a person from Australia, I would prefer the world avoids the ongoing incessant wars that have been a feature of US foreign policy for decades now.

One of the most universally condemned war criminals of the past few decades (at least in the eyes of most left leaning people) in Dick Cheney is supporting the Democrats in this election, which may logically lead one to conclude that he favours that side over the Republlican side, the corollary of which is maintaining the ongoing functioning of the war machine (aka military industrial complex) rather than curbing it, should they win.

To that extent, I liked Tulsi Gabbard when she ran for President as a Democrat prior to the 2020 election. I find it interesting that Cheney and Gabbard have essentially "switched sides". A lot of people do not find such things interesting, for one illogical reason or another.

It is also interesting to note that people hate Trump more than Cheney at this juncture, not that Cheney is running for President, but specifically relating to what you wrote on this matter. As much as I dislike the character of Trump (bombastic, Narcissistic type, clumsy with his choice of phrasing etc.), he did not start any new wars during his last term, while Cheney's record speaks for itself.

 

[EagleShore]

It’s more that we have not seen any rational reason as to why a non billionaire would vote for trump based on policy or ability to deliver policy (recall the whole term he was in that healthcare plan was 2 weeks away); there may be emotional/ cultural drivers to vote trump (eg I don’t like liberals/ progressives/ urban elites I want them to lose so I will vote trump) - these are not based on fact though therefore it is hard to recommend trump for anyone other than billionaire voters

I have heard numerous people cite the adverse impact of illegal immigration when it comes to housing affordability. Just one reason, but it is relevant to everyday Americans, especially lower income sections of the populace.

 

[Spearman]

Who gives a flying **** what Richard Gere has to say.

Endorsements from Taylor Swift I understand.

But does every ****ing celebrity need to be doing this self serving exercise?

some older women still dew up at the thought of him I'd guess

 

[Bloods86]

So instead of actually looking at the respective policies and agendas, you would vote on the basis of an assessment of the relative personalities of the leaders? I suppose many people fall into that category.

I would probably consider note voting, but would favour identifying an independent candidate offering a better range of policies and vote for that candidate or party.

So for those who would not look to an independent, or if they deemed there were no decent independent in terms of policies, and they would rather vote than abstain, it would behove the American population to consider the differences in the respective policies put forward by the Democrats compared to the Republicans.

Applying that lens, and as a person from Australia, I would prefer the world avoids the ongoing incessant wars that have been a feature of US foreign policy for decades now.

One of the most universally condemned war criminals of the past few decades (at least in the eyes of most left leaning people) in Dick Cheney is supporting the Democrats in this election, which may logically lead one to conclude that he favours that side over the Republlican side, the corollary of which is maintaining the ongoing functioning of the war machine (aka military industrial complex) rather than curbing it, should they win.

To that extent, I liked Tulsi Gabbard when she ran for President as a Democrat prior to the 2020 election. I find it interesting that Cheney and Gabbard have essentially "switched sides". A lot of people do not find such things interesting, for one illogical reason or another.

It is also interesting to note that people hate Trump more than Cheney at this juncture, not that Cheney is running for President, but specifically relating to what you wrote on this matter. As much as I dislike the character of Trump (bombastic, Narcissistic type, clumsy with his choice of phrasing etc.), he did not start any new wars during his last term, while Cheney's record speaks for itself.

Cheney has not switched sides at all, in terms of policy alignment. Trump is no anti-war candidate. He's just putting country over party, in relation to the GOPs further movement away from democratic principles (and probably also the attacks on his daughter).

Gabbard has clearly re-aligned her policy positions in order to switch from Bernie to MAGA. That or she's grifting.

Biden/Harris did not start any new wars in this current term, which would be the apt comparison to that claim about Trump. Now you could change that to a general, no new wars happened under Trump vs new wars happened under Biden/Harris, except you'd be dishonest.

 

[EagleShore]

You are upset because we won't humor your fact free BS by engaging with your bad faith arguments.

You are doing the typical right wing trope, claim any batshit insane take you have is worthy of discussion so you can frame the discussion based on a completely false premise. You are either completely disingenuous and/or really gullible.

Not upset at all.

I am merely pointing out some of the flaws of the side you supposedly would support.

You did not refer to anything that those individuals said in their speeches/videos I posted (RFK Jr, Tulsi etc.), so I presume that it is a bit uncomfortable to hear that the party which used to support freedom of speech and were anti-censorship has switched positions on this idea, among others...and yet you continue to support/identify/argue for this party.

Like I have said in other posts, I would consider an independent party provided there was one that had a good range of policies, because at least then there is a record of support for such ideas. In Wisconsin at the moment, there seems to be quite a lot of support for this "Other" category, which leads both the major parties [548,878 (O) v 455,167 (D) v 334,682 (R)]. As someone who does not live within the US, I have not researched this aspect, and thus I am not herein arguing for any particular side/party/candidate.

 

[Not Important]

Taylor swift was massive endorsement.
the others not so much, seems more celebs adding their piece this year.
Joe Rogan nominating trump, but imagine his audience would have leaned that way anyway.

Then you have all the Diddy associated celebs backing Harris, but they also backed Democrats previously so hardly controversial news.

there’s no question the size of the positive effect celebrities have on votes is dependent on the popularity and probably the authenticity of the celebrity. but the research shows celebrities that have a body of work that gives them at least a degree of authenticity do have a positive effect on votes, so those who dismiss it out of hand haven’t read the research.

as far as gere is concerned, he is speaking directly to voters in the swing state where he is from and where he has family connections. encouraging 100 or so people to vote where margins are purported to be so slim might make a difference. it would be a brave person to claim it is a negative,

 

[Bloods86]

Not upset at all.

I am merely pointing out some of the flaws of the side you supposedly would support.

You did not refer to anything that those individuals said in their speeches/videos I posted (RFK Jr, Tulsi etc.), so I presume that it is a bit uncomfortable to hear that the party which used to support freedom of speech and were anti-censorship has switched positions on this idea, among others...and yet you continue to support/identify/argue for this party.

Like I have said in other posts, I would consider an independent party provided there was one that had a good range of policies, because at least then there is a record of support for such ideas. In Wisconsin at the moment, there seems to be quite a lot of support for this "Other" category, which leads both the major parties [548,878 (O) v 455,167 (D) v 334,682 (R)]. As someone who does not live within the US, I have not researched this aspect, and thus I am not herein arguing for any particular side/party/candidate.

What's wrong with arguing for the party which is miles ahead on freedom of speech, the Democrats? When it is a 2-way race.

Sure, when there's a viable 3rd or 4th option that is better, and people still back the Dems, have at it.

Anyone who claims that freedom of speech is important, and then in the context of this 2-way race, singles the Democrats out when Trump actually tried to fraudulently deny/overturn the will of the American people in 2020/21 - deserves to be laughed at. Gabbard and RFK Jr included.