Your 2024 Presidential Election Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
ThunderHorse said:
Democrats are the ones who are anti-personal choice. They are anti-liberty. They are so "tolerant" of this bullshit because it is actually their identity that they cancel you for wrong think on one issue when you might agree with them on six others.
Click to expand...
Exactly! How one conflates the other as, is PROJECTION, even gaslighting. That isn't being a Libertarian at all.
 
FYI, calling one side crazy and the other idiots, makes your argument crazily idiotic itself because insults are what those without a real position use.

And I ain't giving up all my other rights just so I can keep my guns. And I find it humorous when one side (The Left) wants the other to appear as the ones doing the things that the L's have been doing all along.
 
Devildoc said:
What do you think the qualifications are? Then, what do you think the qualifications should be?

We've had academics, captains of industry and tycoons, career bureaucrats, but only 3 professional 'warriors' (FOGO). Honestly I am not sure he's any less capable than any of the others we've had; others with more impeccable credentials have performed very poorly.

My biggest concern--really, my only concern--is a lack of management in a large organization, but this handicap can be made up with a strong staff.
Click to expand...

Dude, I got out as a E-4 SPC. Even now in my older years with a degree and life experience, as much as I saw the problems of Big Army, the waste, the redundancy, inefficiency, I know not to try and run it.

The main requirement would be top leadership in a large organization. Trump spoke highly of the SOF generals he met, and any one of them would be a better fit than a NG Maj. who is also a TV personality. That's speaking as somebody who actually likes Hegseth.
 
BlackSmokeRisinG said:
Dude, I got out as a E-4 SPC. Even now in my older years with a degree and life experience, as much as I saw the problems of Big Army, the waste, the redundancy, inefficiency, I know not to try and run it.

The main requirement would be top leadership in a large organization. Trump spoke highly of the SOF generals he met, and any one of them would be a better fit than a NG Maj. who is also a TV personality. That's speaking as somebody who actually likes Hegseth.
Click to expand...

Miley is 4-star, and was in SF. Is he qualified or a better fit?

I share the concern of a lack of experience of managing large bureaucracy, and there probably are people with better credentials, but is he a bad fit? He shares Trump's vision, which is the number one prerequisite.

Hegseth doesn't give me indigestion.
 
BlackSmokeRisinG said:
Dude, I got out as a E-4 SPC. Even now in my older years with a degree and life experience, as much as I saw the problems of Big Army, the waste, the redundancy, inefficiency, I know not to try and run it.

The main requirement would be top leadership in a large organization. Trump spoke highly of the SOF generals he met, and any one of them would be a better fit than a NG Maj. who is also a TV personality. That's speaking as somebody who actually likes Hegseth.
Click to expand...

United States Secretary of Defense - Wikipedia

So you say this, but when we have a FOGO become SecDef it actually becomes shit. Mattis? Ha. Eff that guy. Austin? Awful.

The list of SecDefs is available to look at. All of them are political creatures. However, most of them had very short careers in Active service getting out at O-3, a few were O-4s or O-5s. But a lot of 1LTs on this list. So to this I would say, you are plenty qualified for the role. Remember, there is a whole technocrat bureaucracy that sustains the five rings and will give the SecDef enough to be successful or be trash like a Mattis or Austin.
 
The Quartermaster said:
Sedition. It ain't the tRmPtSeRs that's the problem. Because they overwhelmingly voted out horrible persons. It's the ideology nutbag driven see you next Tuesdays conducting un-American activities that the issue.

Here, his facebook link admitting it in public even. CNN has already posted it as well.

Bei Facebook anmelden

https://redstate.com/wardclark/2024...Rim4tO6IgC_D0aca5Q_aem_DBZAZ3eSKk-arDcdh-JsqA
Click to expand...

Seen it with Newsom, Hochul, the Mass governor. People talk about the woke mind virus, Democrats keep acting like idiots publicly they will lose in their state (which Newsom was, every one of his ballot initiative positions was soundly defeated).
 
AWP said:
Many on this forum, myself included, though Hillary was a lock, a blowout, in 2016. It was easy to question the media before that race, but it died on election night. Left, right, mainstream anything died that night. Coverage didn't matter and the polls missed it completely.

People made fun of "fake news" and used it as a punchline, even as it proved true time and time again in the years following. Left and right media outlets alike produced polls which were garbage. Bookies taking bets on the results were the closest source of correct info I found this year and even they missed the margin of victory.

People talk about podcasts becoming the future of media, but bad info and ethics do not care about the platform they use.
Click to expand...
Along those lines which has been mentioned a couple of times above, a pollster here predicted Scott Morrisons’ narrow electoral win down to the county. He observed what the herd had forecast, the other candidate winning, and thought he’d got it wrong. He revealed this after Morrisons win and my thinking is that in the US a similar mistake happened.
 
CQB said:
Along those lines which has been mentioned a couple of times above, a pollster here predicted Scott Morrisons’ narrow electoral win down to the county. He observed what the herd had forecast, the other candidate winning, and thought he’d got it wrong. He revealed this after Morrisons win and my thinking is that in the US a similar mistake happened.
Click to expand...

Polling is weird, a combination of math (statistics) and social science. Political polling is a whole, 'nother animal. If the methodology is done right, and there is no bias in the sample, the right sample size versus the population, eliminate pollster bias, It's pretty good. If you look at the better polls over time the consistent theme is they are a political with sound methodology.

The problem starts with either inherent bias or uninherent bias which don't get eliminated, and poor sample selection. That gets compounded when it is pole being funded by political party which in itself can (but doesn't always) have a bias. So, who is asking the question? Is it a political party? Is it a politician? Is it academia? Is it an independent poster? Is it the media?

As an aggregate, most of the polls were actually pretty good this year, but I posted the link to an article several posts back regarding how the media was throttling polls that showed strong Trump results. So having a media that in itself is biased. They will overpublish polls that SKU in their favor.
 
Cookie_ said:
I would argue that there isn’t a "far-left" or "hardcore left" element in this country that has power. Bernie and the squad don't exactly run the Dems.

Since Regan there's really only been two dominant political ideologies; neoliberalism (economic) and neoconservatism (foreign policy). Everybody sort of fell into those boxes.

The people running the country have been neolibs with some rainbow sprinkles for diversity's sake. They'll do what they did under Regan and pull rightward to maintain power, if they're allowed to. They'll all become Blue Dogs if it keeps them seated.

The issue is that neoliberalism is dying overall, because it's failing to address the actual citizens concerns. It's why populism is rising, as seen in some really weird ways. Think of the bernie bros who voted Trump or the perfect example of the strangeness of American politics, People who split ticket voted for Trump and AOC. They overwhelming just voted against the current ideology, even if they might no word it as such.

I don't think at @amlove21 is wrong in his assessment that a new ideology needs established while you've got the chance.
Click to expand...
Well, you could certainly say that but I think that you are demonstrably incorrect.

While the far left certainly has less power than it did over the last couple of nears, and will have even less come November, it does not mean they don't have power.

Measurements of power often involve the DIME construct--diplomatic, informational, military, and economic.

D: nearly 74 million people voted for VP Harris in the last election. From her position on abortion, immigration, guns, trans rights, crime, and a host of other issues, I don't think it's a stretch to say that she's the hardest-left presidential candidate that the Democrats have ever proffered. Even Pres Obama at least pretended to be somewhat-centrist the first time he ran for president. There are still something like 48 Ds in the Senate and the House is also close. "Less-powerful" does not mean "powerless."

I: Democrats have, until very recently, completely dominated the information space. For a long time it seemed like Fox was more or less alone and unafraid against a sea of information nearly completely controlled by the left. And since moderation doesn't sell, it was the far left. Democrats control entertainment; look at the movies that are getting produced. The television. The news. Look at how many entertainers (paid or not) who lined up to support Harris, and who they are. Numerous A-listers from Lizzo to Taylor Swift to George Clooney. All in the Democrats' bag (and, apparently, their pockets). The far left dominates academia. Much of the news. Almost all social media. Those things are ENORMOUSLY powerful. Even more so if you don't fuck it all up by dialing the weird-o-meter up to 11 and pissing off more than half of the population with your shenanigans and dumb ass policies.

M: The executive branch controls the military, and the top-most brass tends to be politically-sympathetic to the commander in chief, which is probably one of the reasons they ended up with those jobs. Also, many (most?) senior generals tend to be left of center on a host of issues. And for a long time, a lot of them (even ones who worked for him) lined up to oppose Trump. The far left also controls non-state actors with military power, like Black Bloc and rioters who show up for things like BLM burn-ins.

E: The far-left Democrat part raised (and spent) over a BILLION dollars in like three months on VP Harris' embarrassing loss to Pres Trump. There are plenty of wealth leftists, and oodles of uber-wealthy companies, who want to give money to far left causes. Everything from BLM to ESG.

To conclude: the far left in America is large, it's powerful, and it's angry. They still have power, and they are going to seek to use it.
 
Marauder06 said:
Well, you could certainly say that but I think that you are demonstrably incorrect.

While the far left certainly has less power than it did over the last couple of nears, and will have even less come November, it does not mean they don't have power.

Measurements of power often involve the DIME construct--diplomatic, informational, military, and economic.

D: nearly 74 million people voted for VP Harris in the last election. From her position on abortion, immigration, guns, trans rights, crime, and a host of other issues, I don't think it's a stretch to say that she's the hardest-left presidential candidate that the Democrats have ever proffered. Even Pres Obama at least pretended to be somewhat-centrist the first time he ran for president. There are still something like 48 Ds in the Senate and the House is also close. "Less-powerful" does not mean "powerless."

I: Democrats have, until very recently, completely dominated the information space. For a long time it seemed like Fox was more or less alone and unafraid against a sea of information nearly completely controlled by the left. And since moderation doesn't sell, it was the far left. Democrats control entertainment; look at the movies that are getting produced. The television. The news. Look at how many entertainers (paid or not) who lined up to support Harris, and who they are. Numerous A-listers from Lizzo to Taylor Swift to George Clooney. All in the Democrats' bag (and, apparently, their pockets). The far left dominates academia. Much of the news. Almost all social media. Those things are ENORMOUSLY powerful. Even more so if you don't fuck it all up by dialing the weird-o-meter up to 11 and pissing off more than half of the population with your shenanigans and dumb ass policies.

M: The executive branch controls the military, and the top-most brass tends to be politically-sympathetic to the commander in chief, which is probably one of the reasons they ended up with those jobs. Also, many (most?) senior generals tend to be left of center on a host of issues. And for a long time, a lot of them (even ones who worked for him) lined up to oppose Trump. The far left also controls non-state actors with military power, like Black Bloc and rioters who show up for things like BLM burn-ins.

E: The far-left Democrat part raised (and spent) over a BILLION dollars in like three months on VP Harris' embarrassing loss to Pres Trump. There are plenty of wealth leftists, and oodles of uber-wealthy companies, who want to give money to far left causes. Everything from BLM to ESG.

To conclude: the far left in America is large, it's powerful, and it's angry. They still have power, and they are going to seek to use it.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm just being semantic with what is "Far-Left/Left" versus what is "American Left"; that's more just a function of being a politics nerd than anything else though.

If the far-left for you is Dems and neoliberalism then yea, there's still power there; I'll just refer to my political position as "a-few-counties-over" left lol.
 
Cookie_ said:
Maybe I'm just being semantic with what is "Far-Left/Left" versus what is "American Left"; that's more just a function of being a politics nerd than anything else though.

If the far-left for you is Dems and neoliberalism then yea, there's still power there; I'll just refer to my political position as "a-few-counties-over" left lol.
Click to expand...
OK, I concur that definitions are important. What are the delineations for you? What policy positions quantify the far left?
 
Marauder06 said:
OK, I concur that definitions are important. What are the delineations for you? What policy positions quantify the far left?
Click to expand...

Like any far end of the spectrum, there will be some differences between groups that can vary wildly; I'll try to break it down into the big similarities and then highlight some weird ones.

The common ones:

Labor- partial/full worker-ownership of businesses (socialism)

Economic- nationalization of some industries; Anti-corprate/capitalist regulation

Healthcare- single payer/universal systems

Education- state funded

Foriegn policy- non-interventionist

Criminal- abolishment of private carceral system

Climate- increased protections to regrowth

Social issues tend to match basic Dem left ones, but you'll get some weird things like the Green party calling for full reparations while the ASP wants to ban same-sex marriage.
Gun rights get super crazy too.

I think Bernie is a good line of where I'd say "far left" starts in the US.
 
Casey still won't concede. It's only costing the tax payers of PA another million bucks or so. :rolleyes:
Mike Lee calls on Casey to concede race, says he could lose Senate seat

Sen. Mike Lee said Republicans could refuse to seat Sen. Bob Casey if the Democrat is declared the winner of a bitterly contested recount effort materializing in Pennsylvania.
“If Bob Casey doesn’t concede, Pennsylvania keeps counting illegal votes, & Casey relies on those votes to claim victory, the Senate could refuse to seat him,” Mr. Lee, Utah Republican, wrote on X Saturday, citing a clause from Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution that says, “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members.”


The X post was a follow-up to his earlier post that said, “Bob Casey, you’re better than this! It’s time to concede now.” The post was a response to another post that included a screenshot of The Washington Post op-ed slamming Pennsylvania Democrats for counting invalid ballots.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

AWP
Your Weekend Safety Brief
Replies
7
Views
1K
Mad boomer
Mad boomer
Marauder06
Combined/Joint SOF Panel at West Point--Your Thoughts?
Replies
5
Views
3K
Gunz
G
Ooh-Rah
Enlistment to SOF - The ShadowSpear Way
Replies
1
Views
3K
Ooh-Rah
Ooh-Rah
Failure404
Moral Autonomy and the Ethics of War
2
Replies
21
Views
3K
TYW27
TYW27
Haldex
MOS Choice - Setting up to Prepare
Replies
17
Views
10K
Arrowhead_FS85
A
Back
Top