Trump won, and that sucks in my opinion, and here's why I think it happened in a mostly rambling, incoherent fashion.

[Sylvan Varain]

I am of the opinion that this country hates women and minorities and that compounded Kamala Harris' struggle, but I don't think it had to as much as it did, and she in fact exaggerated this country's prejudices against her by what I view to be poor campaign choices. It seems obvious to me that she took advice from Joe Biden's advisors as time went on and became increasingly moderate, coming in high in the polls and sliding further and further into it, including that rather famous moment where she responded to Gazan Genocide protestors by calling out to them that if they don't vote for her, they'll get Trump instead.

As a prosecutor and a black woman she had an extremely awkward but potentially very rewarding background to shore up support with different groups of people; the rule of law types, African Americans, women, so on.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwCckKEMtZc&t=195s


FD Signifier on YouTube has a pretty good analysis of Kamala as a black left-tuber that I think is insightful. I think she dropped the ball. Or she never had the ball to begin with as much as some might've hoped otherwise. Quite frankly I think running her was not an optimal choice to begin with and we should have pivoted in a different direction, but her choices to take an extremely lukewarm and uncritical stance of Israel's Genocide whilst dropping the usual corporate marketing lines of 'Israel has a right to defend itself' isolated herself from the communities of people she stood to benefit the color of her skin from. There's also the whole throwing hundreds of thousands of people into jail on petty pot thing to fuel the prison-industrial complex.

It's worth mentioning that Kamala's team was taking aid from Labor Party UK. Those guys. The people that won the least democratic election in British history. The anti-trans guys.

Meanwhile one of the spokespeople for the Democrats is... Liz Cheney.

Meanwhile Bill Clinton is rambling on stage about how Israel has a 'religious right' to Judea and Samaria and how he 'gets why young people think too many Palestinians have died.' He didn't say 'too many Palestinians have died,' he said he 'gets why young people THINK' that. He said this in Michigan. The state with the largest demographic of Arabs in America.

I'm fairly certain these are the reasons that the non-white vote completely fell through for Harris. Trump won Starr County, the most Hispanic county in America. He doubled his African American vote in Wisconsin. The list of achievements for Trump's success with minorities goes on and on and on.


View: https://x.com/DTheKingpin/status/1853993344843616485?t=QagHe6ezEdwMqwxv-dwtWA



View: https://x.com/garrett_archer/status/1854029776727494997


I don't know if Kamala ever really had what it took to motivate the non-white vote. I can see them having a lot of very justifiable contempt for her given that she's a level 500 cop. But if she did have it, she lost it when she was surrounded by a bunch of old white guys (and Liz Cheney) and most of them speaking as if one of the world's worst genocides in the last 30 years was in fact not only not a genocide but is waged in self-defense, all the whilst they're struggling to pay rent and the talking heads on MSNBC are pointing at the charts saying 'but the stocks are up, and you need to understand you're better off than you were before.'

 

[MythicalFox]

As someone not from the US, I won't comment on US politics as I do not know the intricacies of it all. But I do pass my warmest thoughts on to you all as I can see the discomfort that so many seem to be displaying. Please do look after yourselves, in whatever form that takes.

The people that won the least democratic election in British history.

I am intrigued why you think this, however. The election result was seen, generally, as us finally getting rid of the right-wing and (at the time at least) incompetent Conservative party (not as right-wing as Republicans but along that line). Most people here were very happy with how the election went. I'm genuinely intrigued if the narrative in other countries was that it wasn't democratic?

Thankfully the Trans rights part seems to mostly be coming from idiots who support the party (like J.K Rowling) and the horrific comments that certain MPs make, rather than actual party policies. The Labour party has such close ties with the Democrats precisely because they are so well-aligned in their policies and stances. Albeit slightly more left-leaning.

Call me intrigued, and looking to be educated!

 

[Sylvan Varain]

I am intrigued why you think this, however.

Labor Party won 63% of seats with only 34% of the vote.


I am not personally British and thus am largely forced to hear what I know about Labor Party's politics on transgender people. The criticism I hear from the community is not that Labor Party is in the most strict of terms 'anti-trans' or makes policies against them, but that they neglect them whereas the Liberal Democrats proactively support them. I am not in a position to have enough knowledge to debate the topic and would advice you to look into British Trans communities yourself.

 

[MythicalFox]

Labor Party won 63% of seats with only 34% of the vote.

Ah yes, such is the nature of the First Past the Post system of government. it happens often. I won't hijack the thread, as it definitely isn't my intention to do so, but thank you for indulging my intrigue!

Oh yes, and that is why all the best people here vote LD, they seem to be the only party that isn't full of bigots—personal opinion, of course.

Thank you for the response - and thank you for such a detailed analysis of what happened with Kamala Harris - most of us outside the US only get the '
headlines and snippets of interviews with seemingly very passionate supports, so it is genuinely interesting to hear the insights of people actually living there.

 

[small package]

Labor Party won 63% of seats with only 34% of the vote.

That's Labour with a U And the last time any UK Government also won the national popular vote was back in the 1950's (possibly Churchill), so it's not an anomaly.

And from what I've read the answer to why Trump won is that he got his voters out and got roughly the same vote as last time but 10 million Democrats decided to stay at home.

 

[CuteDragon]

I'm always cautious to comment as all we know of trump and harris is what we get through Mainstream media, and most of ourmedia is fairly liberal and tends to paint Democrats in a more favourable light. That said, everything i have seen of Trump seems to indicate he has some dangerous beliefs and tenuous hold on reality. What he does have is some powerful messages for 'the common folk' as in the lower and working classes. Much like in the UK, the majority of folks who perhaps did not have the benefit of a better economic upbringing or acceess to highewr educations, the focus tends to be on the basics. Immigration, wages, taxation etc. And in most of these issues Trump scores well with the majority. Not oly that he has some very strong views on issue slike gun crontrol and abortion which are contentious and polarising.

It's very interesting to me that, the more 'educated' one tends to be, the ore one tends to lean more to a more liberal stance on many things. People who support, for instance, trans rights, women's rights to their own bodies, abolishing guns etc, are actually in the minority in the US.

It's just... interesting. As an outsider, it seems crazy to elect rump, but he has to be saying the right things to the majority to win like that. So the Democrats needs to understand this and try and see if, maybe some of those issues need more attention.

It's always fascinating to see these things play out from over the pond. But I'm a ittle nervous about what he might try and do now he has the power again. he knows he only has four years, is he going to try and make it so he can extend that? Scary thought.

 

[Charbroiled Chef]

It should be noted Educated does not mean Intelligent. But studies have found that lower IQ people tend towards conservative while people with slightly above average IQ tend towards liberal. But it is also a more nuanced topic, those with higher Verbal and Social IQs still tend towards liberal, but those with higher Logic and Numerical IQs tend towards conservative. And those with exceptionally high IQs tend towards centrism. With the highest averages of the IQ scale being center-right and center politically, which means the most intelligent people tend to agree with the right slightly more often than the left but are ultimately in the center of the two.

Kamala lost because she only appealed to Democrats and far left leaning third parties. Democrats and Republicans don't determine the election. If only they voted then the entire country would be run like California and New York because the registered Democrats outnumber the registered Republicans. The groups that determine the election are the Independents and Third Party people. About half of Trump's voter base are independents/third parties, probably more given the prevalence of never Trumpers.
Between these groups understanding the complete and utter disaster Kamala would have been with her fiscal policies, her inability/unwillingness to deal with hard situations which a president must do, the Biden/Harris administration's inept handling of multiple crises in the US, the never ending stream of money for foreign issues and noncitizens while we suffer from some of the worst inflation in our lives, and Trump's actual track record of giving independents and third parties things they want as opposed to the Biden/Kamala administration's not giving them anythign they want. It wasn't a hard election to predict.

The fact that the IRS and the Cheneys endorsed Kamala did not help her chances at all. One of the governmental bodies that affect the common person's life most negatively and the family that loves sending people to die for their wars. Not exactly a great look.

 

[Just A Stoat]

If there is one thing Trump has accomplished, it's that he's fundamentally reshaped the direction of the Republican party. That new direction is utterly completely terrifying, but last night's results cemented conservative election strategy for the next generation. Former big names in the party have have been either pushed out or compelled to fall in line. Moderate ideological sects have been forced to radicalize or leave. The party has increasingly started to rely on non-traditional institutions for both recruitment and action, from influencers to quasi-paramilitary groups. It is no longer accurate to call the Republicans liberal (in the sense that they support liberal representative democracy) in my opinion.

And the Democrats have...pretty much willingly refused to adapt to these changing circumstances. They still hold to the idea that 'bipartisanship', 'cross party unity', and 'compromise' are desirable to their constituents and viable as a policy strategy. But they're not. They haven't been for over a decade at this point. Any notion that cooperation with political opposition was possible should've gone out the window the moment McConnell refused to appoint Obama's Surpreme Court justice in 2015. Hillary Clinton was a poor candidate in her own right, but worsened her chances by appealing to moderate conservatives that no longer exist. Biden, another ancient establishment neoliberal, barely eked out a win based almost entirely on how little people liked Trump rather than his milquetoast policy platform. Harris started strong with broad promises to the progressive wing of the party, but whittled away her good will and enthusiasm by moving steadily to the right to appeal to moderate Republicans that, again, do not exist.

And so we're here. Stuck with a wannabe Mussolini because the eestablishment liberals still want to ignore the modern political landscape in favor of pretending we're still in an era of functional American democracy.

If the Democrats want any chance of political viability in future, they need stop stepping on the same rakes over and over again. That means fundamental changes to their way of doing things. Just some ideas:
- Political tactfulness is dead and buried. Compromising with the people who want the planet to burn, women to be denied basic rights, trans people to be forcibly detransitioned makes you appear weak and like a fool. The opposition is no longer willing to compromise their positions, the Democrats shouldn't either.
- The Democrats got trounced yesterday not because of a lack of membership but a lack of turnout. Modern election strategy revolves around creating a highly motivated base of electors in key areas. With the current partisan divide, people who do not like your policy platform do not vote for the opposing candidate, they simply do not vote at all. No one was excited for Hillary Clinton, no one was excited for Biden, and past July, no one was excited for Harris. People were excited for Trump and people were excited for Obama. Use this.
-Democrats need to radicalize. There are now three generations of Americans that have been screwed over by capitalism, screwed over by repressive social policy, screwed over by conservative labor legislation. Democrats need to abandon the neoliberal worship of existing establishments and promise sweeping systemic change and then actually follow through on it.
-Democrats also need to get over the idea that mechanisms for change are limited to direct government action. Democrats need to work to integrate themselves with core progressive groups and labor unions. The economy is based on labor. General strikes have toppled some of the most oppressive regimes in history. The opposition already calls them communist, so they best take a page from 1905 and 1917.

This is a bit of a rant, but I'll finish up by saying I have zero confidence that the liberal political establishment will learn any lesson from last night other than that they need to tilt at windmills even harder to appeal to moderate conservatives who stalwartly refuse to exist. Protecting those now left vulnerable from their incompetence is something that cannot be done through electroralism alone, and likely will not be able to be done through the strict bounds of the law. Unionize, join direct action groups, join anti-fascist organizations, ensure that there are local non-governmental institutions that exist in your communities to offer solidarity, cooperation, and support.

 

[Sync]

It should be noted Educated does not mean Intelligent. But studies have found that lower IQ people tend towards conservative while people with slightly above average IQ tend towards liberal. But it is also a more nuanced topic, those with higher Verbal and Social IQs still tend towards liberal, but those with higher Logic and Numerical IQs tend towards conservative. And those with exceptionally high IQs tend towards centrism. With the highest averages of the IQ scale being center-right and center politically, which means the most intelligent people tend to agree with the right slightly more often than the left but are ultimately in the center of the two.

Hillary Clinton was a poor candidate in her own right, but worsened her chances by appealing to moderate conservatives that no longer exist. Biden, another ancient establishment neoliberal, barely eked out a win based almost entirely on how little people liked Trump rather than his milquetoast policy platform. Harris started strong with broad promises to the progressive wing of the party, but whittled away her good will and enthusiasm by moving steadily to the right to appeal to moderate Republicans that, again, do not exist.

This is a bit of a rant, but I'll finish up by saying I have zero confidence that the liberal political establishment will learn any lesson from last night other than that they need to tilt at windmills even harder to appeal to moderate conservatives who stalwartly refuse to exist.

Denigrating your political opponent(s) like this is a good demonstration of not understanding why you lost.

DISCLAIMER: no matter how hard you may want to spin things against me, I am NOT a Trump supporter or fan. He's his own worst enemy, and needs to be reminded to engage his brain before he opens his mouth. But from my chair here in Australia, he's the lesser of two evils (so to speak) - there's more for me to dislike about Harris than there is for me to dislike about Trump.

 

[Solo]

he's the lesser of two evils (so to speak)

Australia is, shockingly, on the planet Earth, which his foreign and climate policies are fast-tracking the destruction of, so you are wildly misinformed.

Source, and another.

Edited first link back in because it borked.

 

[Wapato]

I am of the opinion that this country hates women and minorities

I'm mostly here to say I don't think this is the case, at least not primarily. We're still the country that elected Obama and we're mostly women by a couple million.

The second thing is that the primary divide in America is urban versus rural. People talk about states being red or blue but they're almost all like this with the bigger cities being blue and the rest being red.



Many democratic policies are just nonsensical out there. As if there would be tractor charging stations or high speed rail stops in the middle of miles of fields.

I think pollsters have a hard time getting at people outside of urban centers. They probably aren't well represented here. Which actually seems odd, because major cities have dungeon clubs you can just go to. If you live in a house a mile from the next nearest human you'd think forums would be your only realistic outlet for most any kink.

 

[small package]

But from my chair here in Australia, he's the lesser of two evils (so to speak) - there's more for me to dislike about Harris than there is for me to dislike about Trump.

You might think is simplistic take but in a straight choice between candidates I always go for the one who a hasn't be identified as a rapist in a judge's legal opinion of them.

I know that's such a low bar that it's a trip hazard but that's just me. And I would ask what Harris' great evils are but

a) it'll probably derail the thread to such an extent it gets locked

b) not sure I want to know what the answer is.

 

[Just A Stoat]

Denigrating your political opponent(s) like this is a good demonstration of not understanding why you lost.

DISCLAIMER: no matter how hard you may want to spin things against me, I am NOT a Trump supporter or fan. He's his own worst enemy, and needs to be reminded to engage his brain before he opens his mouth. But from my chair here in Australia, he's the lesser of two evils (so to speak) - there's more for me to dislike about Harris than there is for me to dislike about Trump.

Mate, I'm going to try to be respectful to you here but there's no option but to be blunt.

If Trump's policies are enacted in the way that he has described them, people I know are going to die. A ban on abortion has and will kill people and nationwide restrictions are a goal of the now incoming administration and Congress. The gutting of labor, environmental, and safety organizations will kill people. Restrictions and bans on gender affirming care has and will kill people. That includes minors by the way. I lost a trans friend to suicide. She was 16. If she had the social support and medical treatment she needed, she likely would be alive today.

The Trump administration's gutting of international disease prevention services and unwillingness to advocate basic health policy killed hundreds of thousands of people. His refusal to accept the existence of climate change threatens organized society as we know it. Trump has been credibly accused of selling state secrets to foreign powers, he continues to refuse to believe the stated result of the 2020 election, he was at best complicit in an active attempt to overthrow the US government, and he has continued to allude to punitive measures he will enact against political opposition.

The ideology Trump represents poses an imminent threat to people I love dearly. I live in a conservative area. I have conservative coworkers, family members, and clients. I know the way they talk to each other because they assume that I'm like them. You don't.

 

[Tinkerer Nadia]

The cancer man put it best himself. You only have yourselves to blame. You are the architect of your own defeat:

 

[Charbroiled Chef]

Denigrating your political opponent(s) like this is a good demonstration of not understanding why you lost.

DISCLAIMER: no matter how hard you may want to spin things against me, I am NOT a Trump supporter or fan. He's his own worst enemy, and needs to be reminded to engage his brain before he opens his mouth. But from my chair here in Australia, he's the lesser of two evils (so to speak) - there's more for me to dislike about Harris than there is for me to dislike about Trump.

Who said I lost? I voted Trump, only way this election could have gone better for me is if some libertarians got some house seats.

I was just pointing out that "yes technically true, but" of the previous statement about education as the issue of intelligence/education and voter identification is more nuanced than "dumb hicks voted Trump and educated erudite liberals voted Kamala" that the previous poster implied. Many extremely intelligent people are conservative and/or republican, their reasons are certainly different than the dumb people who are conservative and/or republican, but they reach the same conclusion which is what ultimately matters. And there are certainly many extremely intelligent people who vote liberal and democrat. But there's also some very dumb people who vote liberal and democrat as well. Average IQs are 95 for Conservatives and somewhere around 100 for Liberals. There have been multiple studies on the topic. And as I said, these studies also found those with exceptionally high IQs tend to be centrists, but with a slight favoring for the right.

But yeah, plenty to dislike about Trump. Plenty to like about him too. Not a whole lot to like about Harris and a whole lot to hate about her.

I'm mostly here to say I don't think this is the case, at least not primarily. We're still the country that elected Obama and we're mostly women by a couple million.

The second thing is that the primary divide in America is urban versus rural. People talk about states being red or blue but they're almost all like this with the bigger cities being blue and the rest being red.

Many democratic policies are just nonsensical out there. As if there would be tractor charging stations or high speed rail stops in the middle of miles of fields.

I think pollsters have a hard time getting at people outside of urban centers. They probably aren't well represented here. Which actually seems odd, because major cities have dungeon clubs you can just go to. If you live in a house a mile from the next nearest human you'd think forums would be your only realistic outlet for most any kink.

Pretty spot on there is a huge gap between rural and urban centers. And a lot of the urban centers considering the rural concerns unimportant in comparison to theirs. There is also a huge information gap. Most Democrats and Liberals only get their news from mainstream news sources, those sources that are all mostly (90%) owned by the same 6 companies/billionaires/investment groups. That makes it ludicrously easy to coordinate and deliver propaganda. Its why if you actually listen to multiple news media you'll find they use the exact same phrasing as each other quite often.

You might think is simplistic take but in a straight choice between candidates I always go for the one who a hasn't be identified as a rapist in a judge's legal opinion of them.

I know that's such a low bar that it's a trip hazard but that's just me. And I would ask what Harris' great evils are but

a) it'll probably derail the thread to such an extent it gets locked

b) not sure I want to know what the answer is.

Held civilly liable only, the standard of civil liability is significantly lower than actual criminal liabiltiy. It only requires a jury to believe one person's story more than the other. And surprise surprise, a trial held in deeply blue New York with "Me Too" era jurors who hated Trump before ever going to that trial or hearing the accusation, of course they'll believe the other person's story. Trump would have had to definitively proven he was innocent to not be held liable, a task incredibly difficult with around two decades of time between the events and accusation. And even in that trial, they did not believe Rape was involved.

But if we want to talk about what not to like about Harris, how about Harris' time as DA, where her office (which as DA she is responsible for everything that her office and hew lawyers are doing, meaning regardless of how she deflects it was her responsibility and her people because she chose and set the standards they operated by) suppressed submission of new evidence that could and did exonerate convicted people. Where they refused to release nonviolent offenders when ordered to because they wanted to use them to fight Californian Wildfires. Or how about the most recent damning bit, about how she was complacent in the elder abuse of Joe Biden who has clearly been sundowning due to mental decline for years. She was his VP, there is 0 chance she didn't know.

Australia is, shockingly, on the planet Earth, which his foreign and climate policies are fast-tracking the destruction of, so you are wildly misinformed.

Source, and another.

Edited first link back in because it borked.

Trump does not endorse Project 2025 and has actually distanced himself from it. Source

 

[Solo]

Trump does not endorse Project 2025 and has actually distanced himself from it. Source

I do not believe that that is a definitive statement that can be made, and especially that it cannot be drawn from the article you used as a source.

"I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they're saying and some of the things they're saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them." Emphasis mine.

Currently, sure, he "has nothing to do with them and doesn't know who's behind it". Sure. If that's what you want to believe, I'll agree to disagree on that.

...But wait! There's more!

---

"Trump didn't specify which Project 2025 proposals he disagrees with in the statement."

[...]

"There is also overlap between Trump's platform and Project 2025's proposals.

The project has called for an end to illegal immigration while Trump has vowed to "carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in American history" and "terminate every open borders policy of the Biden administration," if re-elected."

[...]

"Project 2025 also supports shutting down the Department of Education, which Trump pledged to do in a 2023 campaign video.

The Heritage Foundation said in a January 2018 news release that Trump had adopted nearly two-thirds of its policy recommendations within his first year in office."

---

How anyone thinks that multiple policies directly overlapping, as well as a history of him adopting a majority of policy recommendations from the same group that collaborated on Project 2025, somehow means that he will not have some, if not significant, overlap once he takes office is beyond me. Because the overlap is heavier than you might think.

Anyway. You will think what you think, and I will think what I think. What actually happens is anyone's guess. I'm just going to continue hoping that I and my loved ones come out unscathed by policies that seek to terminate what I previously believed were fundamental rights. Enjoy eggs being twenty cents cheaper, I guess.

 

[Wapato]

I'm just going to continue hoping that I and my loved ones come out unscathed

Sort of in there is the key point for folks here and people you know irl who may be freaking out.

Try and keep them and yourself from doing anything rash or destructive (even just a depressive spiral). No laws have changed yet, and I suspect the community you have or develop will matter more than a particular law.

 

[Sylvan Varain]

This is a bit of a rant, but I'll finish up by saying I have zero confidence that the liberal political establishment will learn any lesson from last night other than that they need to tilt at windmills even harder to appeal to moderate conservatives who stalwartly refuse to exist

I walked upstairs this morning and walked in on my mom listening to MSNBC Al Sharpton rambling about how the Democrats 'overestimated' how progressive Americans were and that they should've taken a more conservative stance, so. They're already setting up their logic for justifying an even more conservative campaign.

 

[Sylvan Varain]

I'm mostly here to say I don't think this is the case, at least not primarily. We're still the country that elected Obama and we're mostly women by a couple million.

When I (and most people) say things like 'This country hates (insert here)' that's less of a statement on the actual amassed collective opinions of every single person and more-so the institutions and hurdles that exist for (insert here). I do not think the average American is a racist or misogynistic . . . to a significant level. I do think they have different standards on average for a man than they do for a woman.

 

[Sync]

Australia is, shockingly, on the planet Earth, which his foreign and climate policies are fast-tracking the destruction of, so you are wildly misinformed.

2 things, and my final comment in this thread.

1. Your comment illustrates WHY Harris lost. You know nothing about me, you know nothing about how informed I may or may not be, but because I've said something you disagree with you've immediately gone to denigration by accusing me of being "wildly misinformed". Clinton had her "deplorables", Harris had his "garbage"...insulting people is not a way to win them over. Explain to me how this Real Man ad was ever going to win over people - Democrats were already in the fold, Republicans were never going to be swayed, and the undecided just felt insulted (much like the backlash against Gillette for their "men can be better" ad).

2. Trump's share of the black vote increased; Trump's share of the Hispanic vote greatly increased. Are they ALSO "wildly misinformed"?

Who said I lost? I voted Trump, only way this election could have gone better for me is if some libertarians got some house seats.

I was more using the Royal "you", not the individual "you."

You might think is simplistic take but in a straight choice between candidates I always go for the one who a hasn't be identified as a rapist in a judge's legal opinion of them.

Put your hate aside for a moment and ask yourself this question, then THINK about the answer: Would there have been so many lawsuits and charges filed against Trump in such a short space of time if he had NOT been running for POTUS?

 

[small package]

And surprise surprise, a trial held in deeply blue New York with "Me Too" era jurors who hated Trump before ever going to that trial or hearing the accusation, of course they'll believe the other person's story. Trump would have had to definitively proven he was innocent to not be held liable, a task incredibly difficult with around two decades of time between the events and accusation. And even in that trial, they did not believe Rape was involved.

Here's an idea go read the court documents., the ones where THE JUDGE states that while the jury found Trump liable for sexual assault Trump actions amounted to rape, making Trump AN ADJUDICATED RAPIST. But I guess if your a person that thinks the only "fair" jury for Trump are people who MAGA hats, you'll make any excuse for the ADJUDICATED RAPIST Donald Trump, for the person who bragged about sexual assault on the Access Hollywood tapes, who uses the language of far-right eugenicists to describe Harris. Trump is not and never was fit to hold office.

Put your hate aside for a moment and ask yourself this question, then THINK about the answer: Would there have been so many lawsuits and charges filed against Trump in such a short space of time if he had NOT been running for POTUS?

There would have been fewer lawsuits if the ADJUDICATED RAPIST Donald Trump had committed fewer crimes, so forget the whataboutery, how is the simple fact that Trump is an ADJUDICATED RAPIST not the end of the story?
I know the site has some people who write dark sexual fantasies, they do absolutely nothing for me, but as long as they stay fantasies that's fine. But anyone who crosses that line in reality, how does anybody with any sense of morality defend them?

 

[Vekseid]

The same reason him being a close confidant of Epstein and openly bragged about sexually harassing underaged girls is not the end of the story.

There's so much of it people's eyes glaze over, and none of his opposition concentrated on what his politically most devastating ties are. Had Biden or Kamala put a laser-like focus on Trump's connections and agency for communist China, we would not be having this discussion. Though it'd be funny for it to cost him Florida.

Regarding Project 2025, we'll see if he keeps to his word. If he asks Brendan Carr to step down and replaces him with a not-idiot as FCC chair, we would be so lucky. My instinct is the Section 230 broadness is going to be upheld by Roberts, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh instead. At least to some standard I can hopefully work with.

For the election... I was very puzzled about where the enthusiasm for Kamala was coming from. It did not feel genuinely broad or natural, which is part of why I made the appeals I did.

While I hate to use the term... I feel like much of Kamala's support came from a 'diversity is everything' element of the left that was not genuinely reflected in the general population. So the enthusiasm was there in a way that Trump has clearly been lagging in.... but all it was was a smaller, more committed core.

While racism, sexism, and her history as a prosecutor may have turned some off, I think she was mostly tied to Biden's inflation control policies and their impact. This is never politically fun for an administration to deal with (ask Carter).

More aggressive policies and better messaging may have helped, but it would be hard for either of them to escape it completely.

 

[ƒeral]

three words: unchecked misinformation campaign

three more words: often foreign funded

the dark side of free speech

that there is a perception trump would be good for the price of eggs or gas is...funny

like i get the sentiment. people care about their wallets, their own families, not what's happening in gaza. i can respect that. but by the same vein, macroeconomics is not so simple. nor is it as straight forward as do x get y. people spend their lives analyzing that shit and even then can't say they can perfectly predict what action would lead to what. ripple effect. long term vs. short term. etc etc

certainly, informed voters exist. and just as certainly, people look at the price of eggs and blame the then existing administration, nevermind the fact that the unchecked inflation finally started to get checked

 

[WendyTheRed]

If the Democrats want any chance of political viability in future, they need stop stepping on the same rakes over and over again. That means fundamental changes to their way of doing things. Just some ideas:
- Political tactfulness is dead and buried. Compromising with the people who want the planet to burn, women to be denied basic rights, trans people to be forcibly detransitioned makes you appear weak and like a fool. The opposition is no longer willing to compromise their positions, the Democrats shouldn't either.
- The Democrats got trounced yesterday not because of a lack of membership but a lack of turnout. Modern election strategy revolves around creating a highly motivated base of electors in key areas. With the current partisan divide, people who do not like your policy platform do not vote for the opposing candidate, they simply do not vote at all. No one was excited for Hillary Clinton, no one was excited for Biden, and past July, no one was excited for Harris. People were excited for Trump and people were excited for Obama. Use this.
-Democrats need to radicalize. There are now three generations of Americans that have been screwed over by capitalism, screwed over by repressive social policy, screwed over by conservative labor legislation. Democrats need to abandon the neoliberal worship of existing establishments and promise sweeping systemic change and then actually follow through on it.
-Democrats also need to get over the idea that mechanisms for change are limited to direct government action. Democrats need to work to integrate themselves with core progressive groups and labor unions. The economy is based on labor. General strikes have toppled some of the most oppressive regimes in history. The opposition already calls them communist, so they best take a page from 1905 and 1917.

This is all exactly right. Republicans are winning because they've embraced their base and will do literally anything to win and keep them happy. Democrats are losing because they're afraid to cater to their base and their base is getting increasingly disenchanted as a result. For every AOC there are 5 Bidens.

The Democratic base at this point is crying out for just one brave politician to step foward and say what's really going on and fight for them. If Kamala had started her concession speech with a healthy dose of anger and "this is what I think is going to happen now." she'd have had cheers. Instead, she behaved like this is still business as usual and bowed her head and meekly conceded.

Also to the guy who said Trump won't enact Project 2025. Are you that gullible? Some of the authors are either part of his campaign or served in his administration. He'll surround himself with more of them and Project 2025 will be what they push hard for the next 2 years to try to get as much of it enacted as possible before the next midterms.

 

[Just A Stoat]

If Kamala had started her concession speech with a healthy dose of anger and "this is what I think is going to happen now." she'd have had cheers. Instead, she behaved like this is still business as usual and bowed her head and meekly conceded.

I was seething watching that speech. The badass DA I've been constantly hearing about walked up to that podium and essentially said "w-well, 51% of voters voted for the fuck off and die party, so really there's nothing to be done. Have fun with that sepsis ladies ".

Like, the DNC realizes they're one of the largest organizations on planet Earth, right? You can use that influence for things other than another failed campaign trying to convince people that the next Clinton era skeleton they've pull out of the fucking catacombs is totally going to do something of actual significance, pinkie swear.

My advice to anyone reading this. Joining local chapter of Food not Bombs, or a tenants union, or any direct action group makes you more capable of affecting change than one of the most powerful political bodies in human history, apparently.