Harris Vs Trump 2024 US Presidential election - read the warning in the OP posted 18/09/24

I'm shocked, a candidate naming their opponent multiple times in an interview. Meanwhile Trump only recently referred to his opponent as "retarded". So you can complain all you want about Harris handling an interview professionally, it's a hell of a lot better than the orange guy.

Also somewhat telling that you still haven't commented on him swaying on stage for 40 minutes. If Harris or Biden did the same, you most definitely wouldn't be ignoring it.

Another one of those inane meaningless factoids about the interview you waited to look up this morning that still doesn't substantiate your "car wreck" commentary last night.

She mentioned Hannibal Lecter 0 times, Sharks 0 times, Said bing bing bong bong 0 times, told people to vote on January 5th 0 times, stopped taking questions to blast Pavarotti and Cats tunes 0 times.

Is this part of the specifics that made the interview such a car crash in your eyes?

The specifics that you're just too busy to post but somehow have had time to post multiple times across the day?

Are you ever going to actually reply to any of the substantive posts that tear apart your position?

Or are you just planning on waffling away to yourself?

You could write a pretty fat thesis on it, and I'm sure many have, although it hasn't really brought political thinkers any closer to figuring out how to defuse some of the more toxic elements of American culture.

One cornerstone of American culture is this concept of 'rugged individualism' where people aspire to be very autonomous from any kind of overseeing power and that there is essentially a duty on them to rise up if they feel any government is infringing on their right to do their own thing. Like most things, this has positive and negative aspects, but if we're talking about the darker side of the American mindset, it seems like this can manifest as a blind rejection of anything which contradicts their worldview, even if sensible. The irony of it is that you end up with a set of individuals who are self-enforcing a very dogmatic and rigid politics.

This mindset takes absolute primacy for a subset of Americans, and the second amendment is seen as enabling the first, so alterations to it or its enactment cannot even be discussed.

You also have another set of Americans, and I guess there's a fair bit of overlap here, who see themselves as the rightful inheritors of the land. It's a combative mindset we see in quite a few modern countries where the old inhabitants were mostly slaughtered and the remnants allowed to live in quantities that can in no way threaten the new status quo. This set aren't necessarily anti-intellectual in a blanket sense, because they send their kids to the very best colleges money can afford, but they are wary of intellectualism being a vector for progressive social change that may upend their privileged position, and this they will attack whenever they see it.

You could write a whole lot more, but these are just a couple of thoughts.

There's been a few posts about it. One dude alone dumped 25m on Trump the other day, skewing the odds in Rapey Don's favour in order to bolster the DJT stock price. I believe it's back up to about $30 today.

Warned and 1 week forum ban applied

Wouldn’t have been possible to replace Biden until a couple of weeks ago, the nominee needed to be confirmed at the DNC in late August. And I disagree anyway, she needed time to get her campaign together and get out and do debates and interviews instead of having the Democrats look like they’re completely panicking and just replacing Biden with someone else.

And there have been several posters who have given information in this thread as to why betting odds are an unreliable indicator for predicting the outcome. It’s interesting to see in the absence of any real polling movements that betting odds are now frequently coming up instead.

North Carolinians seem to have started early voting with the same enthusiasm as Georgians.

I was literally in the process of cross referencing the interview video for some of your points.

I was about to thank you for actually attempting to reply to some of the points made in good faith. I was in the process of making concessions that I don't think Kamalas border responses(which was roughly the first half of the interview) were particularly strong and why she's constrained by her party demographics.

And then I was going to explain some of the other points around why she was flipping the script on Trump constantly and why none of that in any way makes this a "car crash" interview. On the same level as Trump dancing for 40 minutes instead of Q and A.

But then as @Ha Long Bay points out….. You literally just f*cking copy pasted paragraphs from some random twitter users arguments and plagiarised it as your own!? How lazy can you get? Why should I bother going to the effort?

And then you start editing the post after being caught with your pants down. You know we can see that right?

UN

BE

LIEVABLE.