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

interesting talking to friends in Ireland who were completely shocked by the Trump win. It seems many here were influenced by the intense media propaganda campaign here that promoted the Harris campaign and talked up her chances of winning.

I pay very close attention to US politics cmbevause it's an interest I've always had, plus I lived there for a number of years.

I'm shocked, not because Trump won, because the polls were neck and neck for the most part, but because of what he is and what he has to offer. I wanted, and thought Harris would win because I felt momentum shifted to her in the final week of the campaign, but my shock and disappointment on Wednesday wasn't because rather result was a surprise.

I haven't been listening to Irish media lately, so I'm not sure what the tone was there for this campaign.

Racism, sexism, and ignorance are prevalent across the US electorate? You believe this view to be fact?

Prevalent to the extent it won him the election. Yes, absolutely. Unquestionably.

And to be clear, I'm not saying these traits are all common, to all people. I actually think the ignorance one is the most prevalent, by a distance. But the end result is the same.

Not necessarily.

Trump is a convicted felon who was found liable for sexual assault, was impeached twice, attempted an insurrection and stole classified documents, etc.

Most people thought decency would prevail.

Unfortunately no.

Again you are focusing too much on Trump rather than the Democrats appalling choice of candidate.

Harris wasn't an appalling choice. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Excellent CV, and she was no Obama in terms of oration or person to person connection when in public, but far from someone who looked uneasy in that space as Hillary did.

It's 16 yrs since Obana was first elected. One of the reasons I was so against Trump in 2016 was because I said he would lower the tone of what was considered acceptable rhetoric in the public space. And so it has played out.

You can't simultaneously argue that Trump connected with people who listened to him and we're happy to align with him and that his tone of division and distrust of specific races or groups of people didn't influence them.

He appeals to dim people though who felt hard by and may have a chip on the shoulders.

And of course corporate types who will be licking their lips over a corporate tax reduction. Bad news for Ireland that.

I don't agree that Trump won because he turned people racist, I think that is a massive stretch. There was nothing real about Harris, nothing, and people recognised that. If she was up against a top Republican candidate who was the opposite of Trump personality wise then the landside could have been much greater.

Trying to console myself that, while he has dominated the Election College vote, the popular vote is a difference of roughly 3.7 million. Which, may seem a lot, but in the context of the USA population is quite small. so not all of Americans fell for his lies, just ever so slightly over half.

The amount of attention the trans discussion gets vastly outweighs the attention it warrants when compared to women's concerns from other issues.

This seems a bit mansplainy. Who decrees how much attention women should pay to a specific issue? Men? Lots of men, and indeed a significant number of women, were befuddled at how much "attention" women's suffrage got - they too thought they knew what women should be paying attention to.

And it doesn't matter whether you think one women's issue is less important than another - because women get to vote according to their own lights.

But it's not that abortion access is a non-issue for women - clearly it is. Roe v Wade was a Trump "success" and that did harm Trump's vote among women. Just not enough, because there were other factors.

Also, the Dems' record on abortion access is not lily-white. They spent years in power without ever legislating FOR abortion as they should have done if they'd been serious about abortion access, as opposed to keeping it as an electoral weapon to be brought out at every election and held over women's heads. Even when they had a super majority - and that was after Obama had said that legislating for Roe v Wade would be a priority after his election. But then, somehow, it wasn't.

So it seems like many women felt it was a case of "fool me once" on that. Enough for them not to turn out for Harris at any rate.

Not saying you, or JKR fall in to this category of outright support for Trump, but I have no interest in the opinion of such people on this matter. Not to mention the fact that I don't believe many of these people care about the cis women in the trans discussion either, it's just too good an opportunity to play the white knight for women by targeting a minority group.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Who are "such people"? If you mean someone like Matt Walsh, I completely agree. You'll see no fan mail from me about men like that. Nor indeed about a number of trans women like Bruce/Caitlin Jenner, despite that fact that Jenner takes a clear position on all males, including TW, not being entitled to take part in women's sport.

So is Jenner "white knighting" for women? Were men who supported women's suffrage also "white knighting"? And why does men's support for an issue define its value for you anyway? Can't it be discussed on its own terms, rather than on whether you dislike some men who claim to support it? When Trump was an abortion advocate, were you prolife in reaction?

Trumps major campaign rally had one if his advisors scream "America, for Americans only". That is 100% a statement with racial connotations.

But I didn't say he turned people racist per se, I said he changed the tone of political discourse where more divisive forms of messaging became normalized, and that that appealed to racists. (I gave other reasons also for his win ,primary reasons above racism even, before people think I'm suggesting that's all it was.)

OK. And what's your point?

I know people in their 60s to 80s who get their news from the Irish Times and RTE. And they are dumbfounded by scale of the Trump victory. There was nothing in the news they had been consuming to suggest this could happen. They had been brought to a point where it was a close race, but that Kamala Harris clearly had the lead and the momentum, and was going to win. As well as hearing repeated version of Trump being the next "Hitler".

Black people would never vote for him because he's racist and Harris is black.

Hispanics would never vote for him because he's racist, and a lot of illegal immigrants are coming from central America, and he's trying to stop them.

Women will never vote for him because of his new stance on abortion (ignoring all the evidence of Irish women in the 80s and 90s who opposed abortion).

Harris had been endorsed by Julia Roberts, George Clooney and Oprah. Taylor Swift AND Beyonce!

Point is obvious. Poster bolded final sentence of a report saying momentum appeared to be with Harris, and said that they were wrong.

It did appear that way.

But prior to that, polls had first favored Trump strongly, then mostly stayed neck and neck.

Harris had been endorsed by Julia Roberts, George Clooney and Oprah. Taylor Swift AND Beyonce!

So? Trump had Musk literally paying people to vote for him, Joe Rogan endorsing him, Dans White endorsing him, Megyn Kelly/Tucker Carlson appearing on stage with him, Nick Bosa wearing his merchandise on NFL game TV etc etc

Sure, but the point being made is about the bulk of the media giving an impression of Harris being on the verge of a close victory - and no indication of what would happen.

That's the thing.

Let's say something made in China costs $100. Trump raises tariffs on it to the point where it now costs $200, because he wants the products made in the US.

So okay, a company starts production in the US, they obviously can't match China's labour and materials costs, but let's say they can make the product to sell at $150 with the same profit built in.

People think they aren't going to raise their price to $180, maybe even $190? It's still cheaper than buying in from China at that point, even though it's now $80-90 more than it previously was. US companies will always go for as high a profit margin as they can, and the bounds of those margins will have been raised because of Trump's tariffs. And then other competing US products can raise their prices accordingly too.

Either way, it's the consumer who will have to bear the cost.