Donald Trump & JD Vance Win 2024 US Presidential Election

[cheaptrailertrashglm 3,523]

1 hour ago, baddisease said:

 

 This is wrong.

 

 

Trump ran on MEN IN WOMEN'S SPORTS!!1! and MEN IN WOMEN'S LOCKER ROOMS!!1! and idiotic rubes ate it up. And "a percentage of the population who is on Twitter" regarding wars in other countries? THEY LOST IN PART BECAUSE THE MUSLIM AND ARAB POPULATIONS ABANDONED THEM after what they did in Palestine.

 

 

IMO a good economic justice platform can be, and should be, also a racial justice platform. Both can be winning platforms imo if they message it right.

I haven’t met a single person, outside of online platforms, who cared this much about lgbt stuff. People who I know who voted for him it was based on the economy and how poorly Biden acted as president. also Kamala wasn’t very popular either. We all know the politicians have been pandering to the online population rather than every day Americans who are working their asses off to survive and don’t have time for online discourse. This is where they missed the mark.

 

I don’t think we will agree on anything tho because reading your responses in most threads you sound like you spend a lot of time in online discourse rather than talking to your fellow coworkers (or something). I don’t mean this as a bad thing but for people, like me, who have families, we aren’t worried about men in women’s sports. I didnt vote for Trump simply for his stance on the climate, but I could 100% see why an everyday American, around my age, would vote for republicans. America’s gone to shit with dems in office and like I said before, PEOPLE ARE TIRED. They don’t care about lgbt shit when they’re trying to feed their families
 

1 hour ago, dexter said:

I agree with him on that too I hope they ban these harmful chemicals so Americans actually get one good thing from a trump administration 

Literally will take the weirdo anti vaxxer if it means I don’t have to worry so much about what is in mine or my kid’s food.

[baddisease 17,901]

7 minutes ago, cheaptrailertrashglm said:

I haven’t met a single person, outside of online platforms, who cared this much about lgbt stuff. People who I know who voted for him it was based on the economy and how poorly Biden acted as president. also Kamala wasn’t very popular either. We all know the politicians have been pandering to the online population rather than every day Americans who are working their asses off to survive and don’t have time for online discourse. This is where they missed the mark.

 

I don’t think we will agree on anything tho because reading your responses in most threads you sound like you spend a lot of time in online discourse rather than talking to your fellow coworkers (or something). I don’t mean this as a bad thing but for people, like me, who have families, we aren’t worried about men in women’s sports. I didnt vote for Trump simply for his stance on the climate, but I could 100% see why an everyday American, around my age, would vote for republicans. America’s gone to shit with dems in office and like I said before, PEOPLE ARE TIRED. They don’t care about lgbt shit when they’re trying to feed their families
 

Literally will take the weirdo anti vaxxer if it means I don’t have to worry so much about what is in mine or my kid’s food.

 

Have you not paid attention to ads this election?

 

Every other ad on television in my area was them being stupid as fuck about lgbt issues.

[Lana Del Dufrene 10,504]

7 minutes ago, baddisease said:

 

Have you not paid attention to ads this election?

 

Every other ad on television in my area was them being stupid as fuck about lgbt issues.

Clock it.

[cheaptrailertrashglm 3,523]

11 minutes ago, baddisease said:

 

Have you not paid attention to ads this election?

 

Every other ad on television in my area was them being stupid as fuck about lgbt issues.

No i havent. I’m way too busy to watch anything (probably like most people). The only time I even get on the internet is if I have spare time and don’t feel like reading. 
Most people I know are working 2 jobs or working full time + doing school work (like I am) so I doubt they did either.

 

[Mer 61,618]

The median voter, the ones who decide elections, do not give a flying fuck about LGBTQ+ issues. These are the fringest of fringe issues. I've said it before, and @cheaptrailertrashglm is echoing it again, this election came down to if the middle class felt that they were better off today than they were 5 years ago under Trump. The answer was a resounding "no." 

 

75 million people did not show up and vote for Trump because they care about trans women in sports. 70 million people did not show up and vote for Harris because she will continue to allow gender affirming surgery for prison inmates. 

 

The Democrats (the establishment ones--not Bernie and AOC's flank) need to realize that they do not have a winning coalition without white, middle class workers. 

 

What the conservative talking points on LGBTQ+/trans issues did help the Republicans with is that it solidified their message of being "the common-sense party." Even though our small, left-leaning LB community may not agree with that, the majority of the US thinks that spending time and money on LGBTQ+ issues is a waste, and nothing but "wokeism". 

 

The next generation of Democrats needs to realize that they need to simplify their messaging. They cannot be everything to everyone. They cannot be pro-fracking in PA, and in the same breath also be the party that believes in climate change. They cannot be the party of economic growth, but also implement carbon taxes. They cannot promise to be the outsiders who will go against the elites, and then bring out Lady Gaga and Beyoncé to campaign stops. 

 

The Democrats need to position themselves in the next election as "common sense outsiders," promising to make the economy better for everyone. Kamala Harris's "Opportunity Economy" was just a remarketing of the "American Dream" ideal that everyone can and wants to be an entrepreneur. That dream is dead, and most Americans don't want an "opportunity economy", they just want an economy where they can work 40 hours a week and not feel like they're still coming up short. After they are elected, they can devote some time, quietly, to expanding LGBTQ+ rights, access to abortion, and other socially progressive agenda items--but they cannot run on it. 

 

(They also need a way to build a non-traditional media apparatus, because the venn diagram of people who read/watch traditional news and vote blue is becoming a circle, but that's a different conversation.)

 

If 2028's Presidential nominee does not win, the Democratic Party will be dead for the next decade. 

[baddisease 17,901]

Maybe it's because my entire family is entirely Trump supporters, but they cared a LOT about abortion, trans stuff, etc., all the stuff that Donald Trump *did* talk about at his rallies. While I do agree that yes, the average voter probably didn't care about progressive things, Donald Trump DID push reactionary bullshit and his fanbase - not the average voter but his cultist supporters - did care about trans issues, abortion, etc.

[baddisease 17,901]

40 minutes ago, Mer said:

The median voter, the ones who decide elections, do not give a flying fuck about LGBTQ+ issues. These are the fringest of fringe issues. I've said it before, and @cheaptrailertrashglm is echoing it again, this election came down to if the middle class felt that they were better off today than they were 5 years ago under Trump. The answer was a resounding "no." 

 

75 million people did not show up and vote for Trump because they care about trans women in sports. 70 million people did not show up and vote for Harris because she will continue to allow gender affirming surgery for prison inmates. 

 

The Democrats (the establishment ones--not Bernie and AOC's flank) need to realize that they do not have a winning coalition without white, middle class workers. 

 

What the conservative talking points on LGBTQ+/trans issues did help the Republicans with is that it solidified their message of being "the common-sense party." Even though our small, left-leaning LB community may not agree with that, the majority of the US thinks that spending time and money on LGBTQ+ issues is a waste, and nothing but "wokeism". 

 

The next generation of Democrats needs to realize that they need to simplify their messaging. They cannot be everything to everyone. They cannot be pro-fracking in PA, and in the same breath also be the party that believes in climate change. They cannot be the party of economic growth, but also implement carbon taxes. They cannot promise to be the outsiders who will go against the elites, and then bring out Lady Gaga and Beyoncé to campaign stops. 

 

The Democrats need to position themselves in the next election as "common sense outsiders," promising to make the economy better for everyone. Kamala Harris's "Opportunity Economy" was just a remarketing of the "American Dream" ideal that everyone can and wants to be an entrepreneur. That dream is dead, and most Americans don't want an "opportunity economy", they just want an economy where they can work 40 hours a week and not feel like they're still coming up short. After they are elected, they can devote some time, quietly, to expanding LGBTQ+ rights, access to abortion, and other socially progressive agenda items--but they cannot run on it. 

 

(They also need a way to build a non-traditional media apparatus, because the venn diagram of people who read/watch traditional news and vote blue is becoming a circle, but that's a different conversation.)

 

If 2028's Presidential nominee does not win, the Democratic Party will be dead for the next decade. 

 

How do you differentiate between the average voter and the Trump supporter? Because they (Trump supporters) were rallied around abortion and trans rights and stuff like that. I know because my entire family supports Trump and the only reason my grandmother stopped her support of Trump was because of the Puerto Rico comments by the "comedian" at the MSG rally.

[dexter 2,106]

democrats need a big rebrand - they need to push that their the party of the working people because the average American would think the opposite from how they present themselves 

[Mer 61,618]

23 minutes ago, baddisease said:

 

How do you differentiate between the average voter and the Trump supporter? Because they (Trump supporters) were rallied around abortion and trans rights and stuff like that. I know because my entire family supports Trump and the only reason my grandmother stopped her support of Trump was because of the Puerto Rico comments by the "comedian" at the MSG rally.

Trump’s core base maxes out at ~50-60 million. It’s these 4-5 million swing voters (the ones who voted for Obama and Biden and now voted Trump; and who voted Trump for President but for “small” Democrats down ballot) that decide elections, and they vote with their wallets and what directly impacts them. 

[baddisease 17,901]

15 minutes ago, dexter said:

democrats need a big rebrand - they need to push that their the party of the working people because the average American would think the opposite from how they present themselves 

 

I agree, but my main concern is that if Democrats go on an economic justice platform - for instance, like the kind suggested by the Green Party or the Cornel West campaign - they'll get accused of being communists or some shit.

[Mer 61,618]

23 minutes ago, baddisease said:

 

I agree, but my main concern is that if Democrats go on an economic justice platform - for instance, like the kind suggested by the Green Party or the Cornel West campaign - they'll get accused of being communists or some shit.

Democrats won’t win with any economic platform that is not inherently capitalist and also plays into “trickle down.” 
 

People love hearing the term “tax cuts” and hate hearing “raise taxes”, even if neither the cuts or raises directly impact them. 
 

What Americans think “populism” is, is really just deregulated corporatism with a splash of “I’m gonna lower gas and egg prices by eliminating carbon regulation and being tough on trade.” 
 

Strong borders, less government spending, and pushing for companies to make their products in America is not a controversial platform—it’s just that we haven’t overtly gotten that message without a side of social conservatism. 

[baddisease 17,901]

1 minute ago, Mer said:

Democrats won’t win with any economic platform that is not inherently capitalist and also plays into “trickle down.” 
 

People love hearing the term “tax cuts” and hate hearing “raise taxes”, even if neither the cuts of raises directly impact them. 
 

What Americans think “populism” is, is really just deregulated corporatism with a splash of “I’m gonna lower gas and egg prices by eliminating carbon regulation and being tough on trade.” 
 

Strong borders, less government spending, and pushing for companies to make their products in American is not a controversial platform—it’s just that we haven’t overtly gotten that message without a side of social conservatism. 

 

imo that's an awful platform. Or at least, the "less government spending" and strong borders are problematic as we understand them today. (For instance, I believe we need a strong social safety net.)

 

I want a socialist-style economic justice platform, though I know Americans would vote against their best interests and oppose it.

[cheaptrailertrashglm 3,523]

48 minutes ago, baddisease said:

 

imo that's an awful platform. Or at least, the "less government spending" and strong borders are problematic as we understand them today. (For instance, I believe we need a strong social safety net.)

 

I want a socialist-style economic justice platform, though I know Americans would vote against their best interests and oppose it.

Socialism can never work in the United States. It’s too big. 

[Mer 61,618]

47 minutes ago, baddisease said:

 

imo that's an awful platform. Or at least, the "less government spending" and strong borders are problematic as we understand them today. (For instance, I believe we need a strong social safety net.)

 

I want a socialist-style economic justice platform, though I know Americans would vote against their best interests and oppose it.

 

A "socialist style economic justice platform" is not in Americans' best interests. Healthcare wait times would skyrocket with socialized healthcare for 300 million people (not to mention how quickly the population would grow with a fully open border, further straining resources), prices for everyday goods would also sky rocket as America would lose its position as a world superpower and trade would suffer, inflation would be rampant just like after COVID stimulus (and the only solution would to be pump more money in, further exasperating the issue), and the US would probably fall into complete anarchy and unrest--with a power vacuum so large, a real dictator installs themselves in it's place.  

[Quincy 4,371]

4 hours ago, dexter said:

I agree with him on that too I hope they ban these harmful chemicals so Americans actually get one good thing from a trump administration 

The problem is, republicans don’t want more regulation and control over stuff, especially food. You’d probably see fast food prices, for example, go UP if the additives and preservatives were banned. 
 

There's a ton of shit in our food that’s very unhealthy for us, but I don’t see that changing. Do you really see republican officials voting to approve such measures?

 

While RFK Jr. has a few good ideas, about every good one is counteracted by 5 or 10 horrible conspiracies. 
 

Also, big food companies, including factory farmers, are going to lobby hard against more regulation. 
 

Even in theory, if a few bad ingredients get banned, it will be more than offset by vaccine requirements getting eliminated and implementation of his other kooky ideas, that will make us even more unhealthy. 

[mrborntolose 9,966]

the replies defending trump is…something. 

[Mer 61,618]

12 minutes ago, mrborntolose said:

the replies defending trump is…something. 

I don’t think anyone in the last few pages of this thread is defending Trump as an individual—but refusing to understand the legitimate reasons the majority of US voters voted for Trumpism, and turning this thread into a bunch of “everyone who voted for Trump is a moron” posts is boring. I find the last few pages of discussion interesting and stimulating, and I don’t see a lot of radicalism or off-base comments. 

[baddisease 17,901]

1 hour ago, Mer said:

 

A "socialist style economic justice platform" is not in Americans' best interests. Healthcare wait times would skyrocket with socialized healthcare for 300 million people (not to mention how quickly the population would grow with a fully open border, further straining resources), prices for everyday goods would also sky rocket as America would lose its position as a world superpower and trade would suffer, inflation would be rampant just like after COVID stimulus (and the only solution would to be pump more money in, further exasperating the issue), and the US would probably fall into complete anarchy and unrest--with a power vacuum so large, a real dictator installs themselves in it's place.  

 

And how is stripping people of Medicare, Medicaid, Food stamps, Disability payments, etc. good for Americans? I never pictured you as a right-winger.

[Mer 61,618]

12 minutes ago, baddisease said:

 

And how is stripping people of Medicare, Medicaid, Food stamps, Disability payments, etc. good for Americans? I never pictured you as a right-winger.

I never said it was? Trump will be horrible for the working class, but, his message still resonated for reasons that multiple users have outlined above. And, pragmatically speaking, voters will almost always chose the promise of a smaller govt as opposed to large govt in the US—barring a crisis (depressions or pandemic). 

[baddisease 17,901]

1 minute ago, Mer said:

I never said it was? Trump will be horrible for the working class, but, his message still resonated for reasons that multiple users have outlined above. And, pragmatically speaking, voters will almost always chose the promise of a smaller govt as opposed to large govt in the US—barring a crisis (depressions or pandemic). 

 

true, I shouldn't put words in your mouth. but that's what his people want, which is...baffling and distressing, since I know many who, oddly, rely on those programs but support "smaller government".