Left and Right - can we just agree..?

Not a Trump voter but your argument basically boils down to shes a woman. If she was a good candidate then why did she get smoked in the primaries in 2020? She was handed the nomination and didn't earn it by vote. Also way to ignore the fact she's the vice president of an administration currently facilitating a genocide.

They love to be obtuse and dismissive when asked direct questions that Trump himself is always obtuse about. I should copy my post dumping on Trump on this thread just to give about 15 reasons why he's a horrible candidate.

Most of this political crap doesn't matter. What matters is how we interact with each other m; we can stand by liberal values, self-responsibility, strength.

if we ban abortions, Knockout Joe, Gary the Apothecary, and Jimmy Hook will be performing them under the table.

Given that we're a running forum and well-understand the principle that regulating things (ahem, doping authorities) doesn't prevent that which is legislated against, and with things like murder of an unborn entity which doesn't fully resonate as a human and is not considered murder on a guttural level by almost all humans, it's pretty much pointless to make it illegal.

Similar to the whole doping thing.

Literally every election, this exact same sentiment comes out. "Both candidates are terrible", "I just am trying to pick the lesser of two evils.", etc...

In this case, if you look at their character objectively, Trump is by far the worse person. It is not close.

Thread: Without comparing one to the other, can we just agree both are bad candidates?

3/4 of responses: Well, when you compare x to y, x is clearly much worse.

I just don't understand the argument that Harris is a bad candidate. You don't like how she talks? She didn't win the primary in 2020? These don't mean she's a bad candidate. Time after time, she's articulated clear plans and vision for the future of America. She's been a VP and DA, making her an incredibly qualified candidate.

On the flipside, not only is Trump a convicted felon, but he rambles about nonsense, most of his former colleagues hate him (and the others are in jail), he cheated on his pregnant wife, he clearly hates anyone not white....I mean, c'mon folks.

He inherited a great economy from Obama, than totally shanked the pandemic. All he had to say was "wear a mask" and he would have been re-elected. Instead, he told people to drink bleach and called it the Chinavirus.

Ridiculous take. Harris is fine. Not my first choice, but she respects the US constitution and has articulable policies.

Harris isn't a great candidate because she's not able to articulate exactly why she is running. I mean she's fine, but she's no great shakes.

We want our politicians to have a strong central message, but she doesn't.

Which means she may be a weaker candidate than I'd like...but she'd be a fine president, treading in the center, hiring great people and managing things well. Like Biden. Like Obama. Like Bill Clinton.

There is a difference between being a good candidate and being a good president. She'll be a fine president.

The way out of this twofold:

1. People stop getting their news from social media, which feeds our lizard brain desire for anger and outrage.

2. People exercise more.

If a radicalised righty and lefty hit the trails for a weekly long run (without talking politics), they'd realise they actually connect on many levels, and eventually be able to discuss differneces, even agree to disagree without going nuts.

I should not have mentioned polls - of course they're not predictors. I do know that Nate Silver, BY FAR the best predictor and "pollster" out there, gives Trump a 55% chance of winning. If you look at fivethirtyeight.com's (the most comprehensive and accurate "predictor" website for the last 4 elections) presidential forecast - they give Trump a 53% chance of winning. All of the betting markets have Trump as the favorite, which is very telling. Take this as you will.

And no, I am NOT a Trump voter.

(To re-answer the question of the thread, we cannot agree.)

By FAR the best predictor (better than Alan Lichtman?) does not mean he's good.

When I went to bed in 2016, Nate Silver told me Hillary had an 80% chance of winning.

With national poll skewing, and attempts to correct prediction mistakes in 2016 and 2020, I'm not all that confident in the best predictions, although in all cases it is (inexplicably) too close for comfort.

My prediction is that Trump will lose both the popular and electoral vote in a landslide, as he has only done things to lose votes since 2020, but then local election officials, state legislatures, Congress and the Supreme Court will step in to help Trump try and steal the vote. They might succeed.

What used to be considered Liberal would now be considered Conservative. The Left sprinted far far left, so now many of us "classic Liberals" (pro choice, pro gay marriage, pro legalization of marijuana) are now left behind.

Bill Clinton's very very reasonable statement that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare would have him banned from the Dems. Hillary used to be for a closed bored, insisting that it undermined the gains of American Unionized workers (true).

I was always against the GOP because of it's overtly churchy preachiness. Now that is the Dems. They are the pearl clutchers that are offended at and by EVERYTHING.

Dems now are for men that pretend to be women participating in women's sports, open borders, illegals voting in our elections, set asides based solely upon one's race.

You are correct about Nate Silver in 2016 - he had Trump with a 20-30% chance of winning. EVERYONE else gave Trump a less than 5% chance. Silver and 538 have created the most comprehensive and accurate data model...............of course they could still be wrong tho.

This sounds like far-right propaganda rather than genuine concerns from a "classic liberal". Dems haven't moved that much and still include the "classic Liberals" (pro choice, pro gay marriage, pro legalization of marijuana)". They have even outstretched their right arm to welcome true Conservatives whose party left them (like Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger and Nikki Haley voters). Dems want Bill Clinton's reasonable statement about abortion to be restored -- they only want the status quo that Roe V. Wade ensured. Dems are not campaigning for "men that pretend to be women participating in women's sports, open borders, illegals voting in our elections". In fact, Dems negotiated an open border solution with Republicans, and no one is for "illegals voting".

Dems fight any all requirements to require ID before voting. The ONLY reason you would be against this is if you fully intend on cheating.

DOJ sued Virgina when they tried to remove people that has SELF REPORTED as not being citizens.

DOJ expanded Title IX to include men that pretend to be women.

Abortion is now a state issue, and should be fought on that level. However, I would think (but Im no legal scholar) that a case based on equal protection would make for a stronger abortion law that RvW, even RBG agreed with that.

I just want to point out what a massive misdirection this statement is. What if, instead of imputing the worst possible motivations to your fellow Americans, you actually took in their arguments? To register to vote in the first place, you have to provide valid certification of citizenship; but between registration and an actual vote, which could be years later, the voter's life may have changed in dramatic ways that, for legitimate reasons, could impact their ability to procure an updated and valid ID. Should these life changes really disenfranchise this person? Is the right to vote so unprecious that it hinges on having an unrelated piece of paper or plastic? And what transgression are voter-ID laws supposedly precluding? The idea that, on a massive, large, or even remotely statistically significant scale, one party is rigging an electoral advantage by "cheating" through day-of impersonators is a ginned-up fantasy: it is simply not happening. Since it is not an observed crisis, maybe the reason people like me have reservations about insisting on ID is that we think enfranchisement is sacred.

Oh, if you're thinking about responding, please don't if you're just going to call me and other liberals idiotic; I haven't said anything about your intellect, only the spuriousness of this specific claim.

100. But which is the best of the worst between the 2?

The only reason you are against ID to vote is because you want to cheat.