Undecided voters

[slant]

Yeah. It is really just whatever. Just look at the reaction of the VP debate.

JD Vance: modest background, veteran, best-selling author, graduated from Yale, a normal guy. WEIRDO, CREEP because it reminds people of someone they know who was a bad person (what??). So if he was 30 years older and had grey hair and no beard, it would be ok? I am saying this because "Politico" ran an actual story how his beard is aggressive and threatening to the feminist cause. See below

Tim Walz: lies about being in Tienanmen square massacre (what, why??), says he is friends with school shooter (embarrassing even if he misspoke). self-identifies as a knucklehead. NOT A CREEP, COOL GUY. His bulging, deer in the headlights eyes show how much he cares.

I'd say toxic feminists are really losing it, but perhaps this is their natural state (estrogen dominance):

View attachment 95729View attachment 95728

I just wish people would argue policies instead of weird stuff like this. Very frustrating. Not directed at you, I know you're reacting to it and making jokes. But even many of the responses from both sides I've gotten to this thread shows how deeply entrenched political ideology is. When it is presented a certain way, not fact based, it just comes across as propaganda

 

[philostam]

I just wish people would argue policies instead of weird stuff like this. Very frustrating. Not directed at you, I know you're reacting to it and making jokes. But even many of the responses from both sides I've gotten to this thread shows how deeply entrenched political ideology is. When it is presented a certain way, not fact based, it just comes across as propaganda

What policy? You were the one talking about dog whistles and JD Vance giving you the creeps because it reminds you of someone you know. Then there was talk about "Trump wants to grab it, Vance control it".

At the end of the day, it's always about "reproductive rights" with Kamala voters. Without unmarried women voters and male feminists, Trump would likely win the popular vote by a big margin.

I am a straight, married guy outside of the US. My concerns are:
- geopolitical escalation
- financial markets
- destroying the woke ideology that is spreading all around the world, but epicenter is the US.
- protecting free speech and government overreach.

On all these fronts, I see Trump as a much better option for the world.
I couldn't care less if college girls will need to be more careful who they have sex with it and perhaps not have body count that is higher than their IQ.

 

[slant]

What policy? You were the one talking about dog whistles and JD Vance giving you the creeps because it reminds you of someone you know. Then there was talk about "Trump wants to grab it, Vance control it".

At the end of the day, it's always about "reproductive rights" with Kamala voters. Without unmarried women voters and male feminists, Trump would likely win the popular vote by a big margin.

I am a straight, married guy outside of the US. My concerns are:
- geopolitical escalation
- financial markets
- destroying the woke ideology that is spreading all around the world, but epicenter is the US.
- protecting free speech and government overreach.

On all these fronts, I see Trump as a much better option for the world.
I couldn't care less if college girls will need to be more careful who they have sex with it and perhaps not have body count that is higher than their IQ.

Yeah that was my reaction to that debate, and even I was surprised by it. I'm not woke, I'm not a feminist, I'm just a regular person who didnt find JD's policy appealing. Although that was the initial reaction, it's clear that the policy I was responding to is the policy of banning abortion. I'm fine with it being a states right issue. I'm not ok with a federal ban, and I'm not ok with birth control being limited. Not everyone who uses birth control uses it for prevention of pregnancy (I'm one of them) and also I don't think it's wrong to use birth control.

I don't like how that one issue is being used to determine the whole election, because there are a lot of other important issues that these policies will impact on both sides. There is a part of me that finds the way trump is portrayed triggering my paranoid side where I think, "why would there be a smear campaign against somebody like this unless they were a threat? (to the system, like a threat to existing corruption, not trump being a threat himself)" With censorship and other issues I thought, this country may be going in a wrong direction. But then I tried to challenge myself: if Trump doesn't win, is this "our last shot" ? Will the country be changed so dramatically that no matter what, it could never be fixed? I don't think so. And I also don't think so for Harris.

If Vivek Ramaswamy was the Republican candidate I would vote for him in a heart beat. And that's sort of what I'm hoping for is once we get rid of trump that Vivek will be able to be a prominent candidate. I like him better, his leadership style and his policies. *Even* if Vivek had similar reproductive positions, I think he's a better candidate, has better diplomacy skills. I would be willing to trust him.

I sympathize with why abortion isn't an important issue to you. And abortion itself isn't an issue I ever have to deal with because my partner and I are technically incapable of having children. But the birth control thing is important for me because menstruation is disgusting and I use birth control to avoid it, and I don't know why that is morally wrong. But beyond that, I thought JD's presentation about "earning trust" was him saying that he doesn't care what people want, what America wants, that he is smarter and that the correct route is to change people's minds on the issue. Am I wrong on my read on that? Let's say the Democrats were to say something similar about illegal immigration; that their goal was to "earn American's trust" to let in more illegal immigrants, wouldn't that seem twisted like the American people don't know enough to make decisions for themselves? Whether you like it or not, if the American people have a position on an issue, it seems bananas to say you've got to convince them they're wrong. But again that's just me. A HUGE part of the appeal of Trump for me IS his anti-establishment, populist positions so I think what happened with JD taking a position like this for me is that it went against what Trump is trying to do. Trump very carefully has said it is a states-right issue and that's acceptable for me. JD is more right than Trump on abortion and I think they are pairing him with Trump to appeal to those people who are against reproductive stuff but it is a bad, bad move. You are so right that reproductive rights are a big decider, so why not just be liberal with it like Trump is doing and WIN the election? Trump clearly understands that. JD not so much.

 

[SlowUpTake]

I was impressed that global warming was discussed as an issue.

 

[philostam]

Yeah that was my reaction to that debate, and even I was surprised by it. I'm not woke, I'm not a feminist, I'm just a regular person who didnt find JD's policy appealing. Although that was the initial reaction, it's clear that the policy I was responding to is the policy of banning abortion. I'm fine with it being a states right issue. I'm not ok with a federal ban, and I'm not ok with birth control being limited. Not everyone who uses birth control uses it for prevention of pregnancy (I'm one of them) and also I don't think it's wrong to use birth control.

I don't like how that one issue is being used to determine the whole election, because there are a lot of other important issues that these policies will impact on both sides. There is a part of me that finds the way trump is portrayed triggering my paranoid side where I think, "why would there be a smear campaign against somebody like this unless they were a threat? (to the system, like a threat to existing corruption, not trump being a threat himself)" With censorship and other issues I thought, this country may be going in a wrong direction. But then I tried to challenge myself: if Trump doesn't win, is this "our last shot" ? Will the country be changed so dramatically that no matter what, it could never be fixed? I don't think so. And I also don't think so for Harris.

If Vivek Ramaswamy was the Republican candidate I would vote for him in a heart beat. And that's sort of what I'm hoping for is once we get rid of trump that Vivek will be able to be a prominent candidate. I like him better, his leadership style and his policies. *Even* if Vivek had similar reproductive positions, I think he's a better candidate, has better diplomacy skills. I would be willing to trust him.

I sympathize with why abortion isn't an important issue to you. And abortion itself isn't an issue I ever have to deal with because my partner and I are technically incapable of having children. But the birth control thing is important for me because menstruation is disgusting and I use birth control to avoid it, and I don't know why that is morally wrong. But beyond that, I thought JD's presentation about "earning trust" was him saying that he doesn't care what people want, what America wants, that he is smarter and that the correct route is to change people's minds on the issue. Am I wrong on my read on that? Let's say the Democrats were to say something similar about illegal immigration; that their goal was to "earn American's trust" to let in more illegal immigrants, wouldn't that seem twisted like the American people don't know enough to make decisions for themselves? Whether you like it or not, if the American people have a position on an issue, it seems bananas to say you've got to convince them they're wrong. But again that's just me. A HUGE part of the appeal of Trump for me IS his anti-establishment, populist positions so I think what happened with JD taking a position like this for me is that it went against what Trump is trying to do. Trump very carefully has said it is a states-right issue and that's acceptable for me. JD is more right than Trump on abortion and I think they are pairing him with Trump to appeal to those people who are against reproductive stuff but it is a bad, bad move. You are so right that reproductive rights are a big decider, so why not just be liberal with it like Trump is doing and WIN the election? Trump clearly understands that. JD not so much.

JD Vance said during the debate that he's aligned with Trump on abortion. I have no idea what the "earn back trust" meant. Maybe earn back trust of women who fear they're gonna support national abortion ban. For me, there was nothing particularly alarming in what he said. JD Vance is not gonna go against Trump, that's for sure. He doesn't have the final call anyway.

Agree on Vivek. He is definitely more diplomatic, has a higher "Fe" or "Te" or something like that. I would've like him as a president too, or at least as a VP. But he endorsed Trump and will advise him on certain issues if elected, so he's still part of the team in some capacity.

 

[slant]

JD Vance said during the debate that he's aligned with Trump on abortion. I have no idea what the "earn back trust" meant. Maybe earn back trust of women who fear they're gonna support national abortion ban. For me, there was nothing particularly alarming in what he said. JD Vance is not gonna go against Trump, that's for sure. He doesn't have the final call anyway.

Agree on Vivek. He is definitely more diplomatic, has a higher "Fe" or "Te" or something like that. I would've like him as a president too, or at least as a VP. But he endorsed Trump and will advise him on certain issues if elected, so he's still part of the team in some capacity.

Yeah I wish he would have been more specific. It is unclear what he meant and my interpretation may be less than favorable. I've been watching his campaign speeches and unfortunately have not seen anything that clarified it.

 

[slant]

This was good. I like John Bolton and unfortunately he was fired by Trump. I do not like trump isolationist policies. Harris is aligned with Bolton, although Bolton doesn't think she goes far enough which I find concerning. There doesn't appear to be any candidate currently who has a rigorous enough interventionist foreign policy. Doesn't look like Vivek would be much better in regards to this. But if we have to vote Trump vs Harris, looks like Harris is going to take a pretty decent war hawk stance which I approve of. That's one of the things I regret when Clinton was running, at the time I was pro Bernie and thought that Clinton was too much of a war hawk. I did not have a very nuanced perspective of what a genius Clinton really was in terms of foreign affairs.

 

[philostam]

This was good. I like John Bolton and unfortunately he was fired by Trump. I do not like trump isolationist policies. Harris is aligned with Bolton, although Bolton doesn't think she goes far enough which I find concerning. There doesn't appear to be any candidate currently who has a rigorous enough interventionist foreign policy. Doesn't look like Vivek would be much better in regards to this. But if we have to vote Trump vs Harris, looks like Harris is going to take a pretty decent war hawk stance which I approve of. That's one of the things I regret when Clinton was running, at the time I was pro Bernie and thought that Clinton was too much of a war hawk. I did not have a very nuanced perspective of what a genius Clinton really was in terms of foreign affairs.

I tried listening but I just cannot stomach this Bolton guy. I guess now I better understand your visceral reaction towards JD Vance.
He's a vile little arrogant weasel as far as I'm concerned.

I saw a clip when he laughed at Vivek for suggesting that deep state exists.
Billionaires say money doesn't mater, fashion models say beauty doesn't matter, John Bolton says deep state doesn't matter (or exist).

There's nothing wrong with isolationism. China is isolationist, for example. Military is an essential tool for survival and sovereignty, but it's a very blunt instrument when it comes to achieving strategic goals. China has a strong military, but most of it's not really deployed anywhere. This worked very well for them.

What good did the wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan do for the USA? Not much if you ask me. All empires die when they start to overextend themselves.

People like John Bolton I think see USA as a chess grand-master who can play with 10 noobs at the time and defeat them all with moves that require 5 seconds thinking. Reality is far different. I think USA should focus on protecting Israel in Middle East and Taiwan from China. That's it.

Trump was on a good track in the Middle East with Abraham accords, but it all went to shit under Biden/Harris and now Iran is close to having a nuclear weapon. Great job.

But I am venturing a bit outside my scope here, truth be told.

 

[SlowUpTake]

Bolton's complaint about trump is not about policy or world view or interventionism, couching it like that is deceptive. Bolton claims that trump is unfit to be the President of the United States. This is Dick and Liz Cheney's view same with William Cohen , Chuck Hagel, William Webster, Michael Hayden... he has also mishandled classified national security documents and tried overturn an election.
These are not policy issues.

 

[slant]

I tried listening but I just cannot stomach this Bolton guy. I guess now I better understand your visceral reaction towards JD Vance.
He's a vile little arrogant weasel as far as I'm concerned.

I saw a clip when he laughed at Vivek for suggesting that deep state exists.
Billionaires say money doesn't mater, fashion models say beauty doesn't matter, John Bolton says deep state doesn't matter (or exist).

There's nothing wrong with isolationism. China is isolationist, for example. Military is an essential tool for survival and sovereignty, but it's a very blunt instrument when it comes to achieving strategic goals. China has a strong military, but most of it's not really deployed anywhere. This worked very well for them.

What good did the wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan do for the USA? Not much if you ask me. All empires die when they start to overextend themselves.

People like John Bolton I think see USA as a chess grand-master who can play with 10 noobs at the time and defeat them all with moves that require 5 seconds thinking. Reality is far different. I think USA should focus on protecting Israel in Middle East and Taiwan from China. That's it.

Trump was on a good track in the Middle East with Abraham accords, but it all went to shit under Biden/Harris and now Iran is close to having a nuclear weapon. Great job.

But I am venturing a bit outside my scope here, truth be told.

Although I agree that, yes, the one risk of being an active player in international military conflicts is overextension, I don't think it's cut and dry the outcome of these wars. It is super easy to look at them as failed interventions because we don't have evidence of what would have happened if we didn't intervene. Would it have gotten worse? People forget that we aren't on a different planet from all these other people. Even though we have an ocean that's protected us from a lot of different countries, eventually when dictators and fanatical groups take charge it will effect us. That's what world war 2 was all about... We established these interventionist policies because of the consequences that happened as a result of us *not* being involved. That war would have gone in the favor of the other parties without our involvement. War is difficult, you can't always predict what is going to happen. Some of these wars didn't end with the ideal outcome. That doesn't mean we are going to be safer by not being involved. Of course the non interventionist policies are going to be popular with the public; it's equivalent to the school president saying "vote for me and there will be free candy in all the vending machines". What kid wouldn't love that? But then everyone gets cavities and diabetes and it becomes evident that doing the things that sound good, that make us feel good and moral, aren't actually going to benefit our health.

 

[philostam]

Bolton's complaint about trump is not about policy or world view or interventionism, couching it like that is deceptive. Bolton claims that trump is unfit to be the President of the United States. This is Dick and Liz Cheney's view same with William Cohen , Chuck Hagel, William Webster, Michael Hayden... he has also mishandled classified national security documents and tried overturn an election.
These are not policy issues.

These are not people I listen to and care about, but thanks. Good to know what deep state establishment thinks.

 

[philostam]

Although I agree that, yes, the one risk of being an active player in international military conflicts is overextension, I don't think it's cut and dry the outcome of these wars. It is super easy to look at them as failed interventions because we don't have evidence of what would have happened if we didn't intervene. Would it have gotten worse? People forget that we aren't on a different planet from all these other people. Even though we have an ocean that's protected us from a lot of different countries, eventually when dictators and fanatical groups take charge it will effect us. That's what world war 2 was all about... We established these interventionist policies because of the consequences that happened as a result of us *not* being involved. That war would have gone in the favor of the other parties without our involvement. War is difficult, you can't always predict what is going to happen. Some of these wars didn't end with the ideal outcome. That doesn't mean we are going to be safer by not being involved. Of course the non interventionist policies are going to be popular with the public; it's equivalent to the school president saying "vote for me and there will be free candy in all the vending machines". What kid wouldn't love that? But then everyone gets cavities and diabetes and it becomes evident that doing the things that sound good, that make us feel good and moral, aren't actually going to benefit our health.

Yeah here we go again with the WW2 analogy. A really perfect excuse for all war hawks to start wars. I'm sure that Vietnam and Iraq had the potential to be the next Nazi Germany and conquer Europe and the world. And their leaders were the next Hitler.

And I knew in advance what you were gonna say. Wars are complicated, we don't have all information, could've been worse for us without the wars...This has been your argument from the beginning. You assume the position of deferring to "authority" and giving them benefit of the doubt.

If I remember correctly you also started a thread like "Is war good for US economy", right? The puzzle is getting together in my head.

We just disagree, it's not about me wanting to sound good and appear moral. If I cared about that, I'd be supporting Kamala.

 

[slant]

Yeah here we go again with the WW2 analogy. A really perfect excuse for all war hawks to start wars. I'm sure that Vietnam and Iraq had the potential to be the next Nazi Germany and conquer Europe and the world. And their leaders were the next Hitler.

And I knew in advance what you were gonna say. Wars are complicated, we don't have all information, could've been worse for us without the wars...This has been your argument from the beginning. You assume the position of deferring to "authority" and giving them benefit of the doubt.

If I remember correctly you also started a thread like "Is war good for US economy", right? The puzzle is getting together in my head.

We just disagree, it's not about me wanting to sound good and appear moral. If I cared about that, I'd be supporting Kamala.

Yeah no worries I wasn't trying to change you mind, thought you were wanting more of a discussion. We do disagree fundamentally.

 

[slant]

I guess at this point my one fundamental conflict is that our national defense is my #1 concern and only Harris is going to do the high activity internationally that I think is in our best interest. But on the other hand, I'm not a fan of a lot of her economic and social policies and I feel like voting for her is just giving more backing and legitimacy to it. This race feels so tight. Honestly, if Trump changed his foreign policy stances, I think he would be the best bet hands down. But the reason he is popular is because of his isolationist policies and he would definitely lose a lot of support if he did that. So my most important issues are inherently in conflict. I guess, for the next four years, which is going to be more important: keeping a strong foreign military presence or economic policies? They're both pretty damn important.

 

[philostam]

I guess at this point my one fundamental conflict is that our national defense is my #1 concern and only Harris is going to do the high activity internationally that I think is in our best interest. But on the other hand, I'm not a fan of a lot of her economic and social policies and I feel like voting for her is just giving more backing and legitimacy to it. This race feels so tight. Honestly, if Trump changed his foreign policy stances, I think he would be the best bet hands down. But the reason he is popular is because of his isolationist policies and he would definitely lose a lot of support if he did that. So my most important issues are inherently in conflict. I guess, for the next four years, which is going to be more important: keeping a strong foreign military presence or economic policies? They're both pretty damn important.

May I ask you concretely what are you afraid of? Like from where would Trump withdraw and what would happen in the worst case scenario?

Is it Middle East, China, Russia...what is the threat?

 

[slant]

May I ask you concretely what are you afraid of? Like from where would Trump withdraw and what would happen in the worst case scenario?

Is it Middle East, China, Russia...what is the threat?

Yeah, that trump would try to withdraw from Ukraine mostly. He seems like he is going to continue the Israel stuff. Also he's made it clear that he isn't interested in continuing overseas wars in general so any future conflict he would not be game for

 

[aeon]

I’m exactly at an age where I dovetailed perfectly when the Republican party decided to go hard on social policy.

That started with Reagan. So welfare queen, ignoring AIDS, and the end of mental health care for millions.

I sometimes like the economic and foreign policy positions of the Republicans. Sometimes.

But it always comes with a steaming side serving of social controls which are always off-putting.

The party of small government always wants to be up in someone’s shit.

At least in that way, I’ve never been undecided.

And this time, it doesn’t matter. I simply will not vote for a rapist, full stop.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Wyote]

I simply will not vote for a rapist, full stop.

Yeah but,
Commie-la is part of the deep state looninati sex cult and has obviously partaken in rape parties.
Unlike Trump who has probably only raped like one or two times and it was totally a hetero normative thing.

 

[philostam]

Yeah, that trump would try to withdraw from Ukraine mostly. He seems like he is going to continue the Israel stuff. Also he's made it clear that he isn't interested in continuing overseas wars in general so any future conflict he would not be game for

What Israel stuff? Israel wants him to win, no? That's how it seems to me. Also, wouldn't you say Abraham accords were a step in the right direction? What is Biden/Harris doing in the Middle East that's good for you?

Are you afraid of Russia, how are they a threat to the USA exactly?

I think he'd take each war in isolation. You cannot say he won't be game in China/Taiwan escalation, for example.

 

[philostam]

The race doesn't even seem that close to me. Kamala appeared on "Call me Daddy" podcast (?) 3 days ago, got 500k views and huge dislike ratio and negative comments.

Flagrant put out a Trump conversation less than 24 houra ago, already more than 1.1 million views.

I haven't seen either but I think clearly Trump is more popular amongst the younger people. Unless these podcasts are watched predominantly by men, then it doesn't tell us much. I mean it's clear that young men prefer Trump.