[BET] Trump or Harris 2024, Poker Player vs suchmoon

[Darkesthourred]

Trump's rating has soared a lot, I think he will be the winner

[Free Market Capitalist]

Trump's rating has soared a lot, I think he will be the winner

Well, given that many of us who comment in these threads start from very different positions and that the discussions lead to nothing, but to spend energy unnecessarily to reaffirm one's own position, I feel more like commenting on this, on the possible outcome, which is what this thread is about.

I have seen this election as pretty much 50/50, even at some point I thought I had a bit of a lead Kamala but I think now Trump is ahead and so seems to be the consensus, even if you watch some news channels that are more pro-Kamala. I could be wrong and a little biased about this, but this is what I think as of today, that Trump is more likely to win at this point.

[theymos]

Harris has fallen slightly behind in many of the election models, but I have a feeling that the polls may be underrating her a bit. I think that when undecided voters go into the voting booth, a lot of them are going to view this as essentially "Trump vs The Mystery Box", and they're going to prefer The Mystery Box. Moreover, a lot of people are going to be relieved to have somebody to vote for who isn't a senile old man. Keep in mind that most undecided voters are also low-information voters, and don't know more than the bits and pieces of vague rumor that they've absorbed without trying.

So I think that Harris will win like this:


For the Senate I think it'll be 51-49 for Republicans, and for the House 218-217 for Democrats.

I like split government, where not much can get done, so that wouldn't be a terrible outcome. I think that Trump is slightly less-bad than Harris, so the ideal scenario would be for Trump to win the presidency, with Republicans in the Senate so that Trump can make conservative judicial appointments, but with Democrats in the House to try to block some of Trump's authoritarian and crazy instincts. This particular outcome isn't very likely, but it's not impossible.

Polls are very close, though, so anything's possible. If polls are as wrong as they were in 2016, then we could get either a huge Republican win or a huge Democratic win. (I don't see any reason to assume that if polls are very wrong, then they'll necessarily be wrong in Republicans' favor again.)

[ibminer]

~
I like split government, where not much can get done, so that wouldn't be a terrible outcome. I think that Trump is slightly less-bad than Harris, so the ideal scenario would be for Trump to win the presidency, with Republicans in the Senate so that Trump can make conservative judicial appointments, but with Democrats in the House to try to block some of Trump's authoritarian and crazy instincts. This particular outcome isn't very likely, but it's not impossible.
~

I could probably live with this.

I'd consider myself undecided, although hopefully not low-information... but TBH, it feels designed this way, I definitely can't do the research I should be doing to keep up with the misinformation, most people can't. Most people I know are continually overwhelmed with life in general, work, and just getting by... most people don't have time to fact check and dig deep into things like we really need to do these days. Plus we're all flooded with devices that not only lower our attention span, but keep us locked into various algorithms which alter people's general psyche.

I still don't see either candidate as being a president I want. Given the options though, I do lean towards Trump being a slightly safer option, while blindly assuming the checks & balances of the system keep working to control him for 4 years. My fear is that he'll ultimately end up with more power this time around and is able to get more crazy stuff through this time, potentially relating to the election process itself.

Based on the patterns I see, the election will probably end up with Trump as the winner. The country is being split as parties push further to the extremes, the past 6 election cycles starting with Bush bounce from republican to democrat each time, most of the country just wants to be in the center... so I think overall the people just keep getting pushed too far after 4 years of each party, and wanting to flip it back to try and get back to the center. People at the polls will probably just want another flip in parties, and I think that ends up being Trump this time around.

[paxmao]

Harris has fallen slightly behind in many of the election models, but I have a feeling that the polls may be underrating her a bit. I think that when undecided voters go into the voting booth, a lot of them are going to view this as essentially "Trump vs The Mystery Box", and they're going to prefer The Mystery Box. Moreover, a lot of people are going to be relieved to have somebody to vote for who isn't a senile old man. Keep in mind that most undecided voters are also low-information voters, and don't know more than the bits and pieces of vague rumor that they've absorbed without trying.

So I think that Harris will win like this:


For the Senate I think it'll be 51-49 for Republicans, and for the House 218-217 for Democrats.

I like split government, where not much can get done, so that wouldn't be a terrible outcome. I think that Trump is slightly less-bad than Harris, so the ideal scenario would be for Trump to win the presidency, with Republicans in the Senate so that Trump can make conservative judicial appointments, but with Democrats in the House to try to block some of Trump's authoritarian and crazy instincts. This particular outcome isn't very likely, but it's not impossible.

Polls are very close, though, so anything's possible. If polls are as wrong as they were in 2016, then we could get either a huge Republican win or a huge Democratic win. (I don't see any reason to assume that if polls are very wrong, then they'll necessarily be wrong in Republicans' favor again.)

Yep, the models at this point are meaningless. Even The Economist which tends to have sophisticated models is giving a 50-50 chance, but in the end this ends up in a few swing states, which in turn end up in a few swing counties, which in turn ends up in a few thousands - sometimes a few hundred votes.

For me this does not make any sense and it is not the only country in which it does not make sense, it tends to ignore minorities that are substantial enough to make a difference. But it is not going to change, the popular vote has been Democrat since 2008 if I recall correctly, so no chance of changing the system.

[theymos]

I still don't see either candidate as being a president I want. Given the options though, I do lean towards Trump being a slightly safer option, while blindly assuming the checks & balances of the system keep working to control him for 4 years. My fear is that he'll ultimately end up with more power this time around and is able to get more crazy stuff through this time, potentially relating to the election process itself.

Yeah, I'm not that far from considering Harris the lesser evil. Trump's first term was pretty good (grading on a curve here...), but that's because he often listened to the Republican establishment when they told him that he was being stupid. This time around he seemingly plans to surround himself with only loyalists. In a few cases this is good -- Trump is much more anti-war than the Republican elites, for example --, but in many cases this is bad. Trump's policies on immigration and tarriffs will hurt the economy, and JD-Vance-style Christian Nationalism is almost diametrically opposed to the sort of free society I'd like to live in. The fact that Trump cited authoritarian Viktor Orbán positively in the last debate is not a good sign.

But with Harris also being very bad, I consider Trump the lesser evil because:
 - He will do some very good things, especially deregulation
 - He seems to have a strong anti-war instinct
 - He used to be a Democrat, and I think that in his heart of hearts he has no interest in promoting conservative social policies. (Though he will go along with this stuff when it's politically convenient.)
 - His administration will be a total mess, just like last time, so he won't be nearly as effective at advancing his terrible policies as Harris would be with hers.

[TwitchySeal]

Trump is much more anti-war than the Republican elites, for example

Do you think he would be anti war if he thought he starting a war would give him more power, or that he would look weak if he didn't start a war, or if starting a war were the only way to stop the democrats from sweeping in the midterms, or if he just wanted to be a bad ass manly man?
I don't think he's pro or anti much of anything other than himself.  We already know he had to be talked out of bombing mexico and Irans nuclear facilities.  He also had no problem escalating things with North Korea.  I don't think it's that crazy to think he'd start a war because of a conspiracy theory some random started on his social network. And he'd definitely think he could blame someone else and get away with it.

[paxmao]

I still don't see either candidate as being a president I want. Given the options though, I do lean towards Trump being a slightly safer option, while blindly assuming the checks & balances of the system keep working to control him for 4 years. My fear is that he'll ultimately end up with more power this time around and is able to get more crazy stuff through this time, potentially relating to the election process itself.

Yeah, I'm not that far from considering Harris the lesser evil. Trump's first term was pretty good (grading on a curve here...), but that's because he often listened to the Republican establishment when they told him that he was being stupid. This time around he seemingly plans to surround himself with only loyalists. In a few cases this is good -- Trump is much more anti-war than the Republican elites, for example --, but in many cases this is bad. Trump's policies on immigration and tarriffs will hurt the economy, and JD-Vance-style Christian Nationalism is almost diametrically opposed to the sort of free society I'd like to live in. The fact that Trump cited authoritarian Viktor Orbán positively in the last debate is not a good sign.

But with Harris also being very bad, I consider Trump the lesser evil because:
 - He will do some very good things, especially deregulation
 - He seems to have a strong anti-war instinct
 - He used to be a Democrat, and I think that in his heart of hearts he has no interest in promoting conservative social policies. (Though he will go along with this stuff when it's politically convenient.)
 - His administration will be a total mess, just like last time, so he won't be nearly as effective at advancing his terrible policies as Harris would be with hers.

Trump has cited nearly all authoritarians in the world as models ... strong men, decisive... we are taking Kim & Putin as the cool guys in his imaginary.

And about that first term, I would like to know more about the curve you are using. At least in terms of communications it as a complete conundrum of confusing messages - just remember covid. At this moment, the US economy is at full speed , particularly if you compare it with the rest of the world.

On war, anyone can stop the war in Ukraine (not so much in the Middle East), all you need to do is surrender or reach a botched deal and get ready for another war in 3 years or prepare to spend ridiculous money to keep the NATO borders with Russia defended.

But my bottom line is that is terribly divisive leader. Kamala is not very efficient, but she is not divisive.

[BADecker]

I still don't see either candidate as being a president I want. Given the options though, I do lean towards Trump being a slightly safer option, while blindly assuming the checks & balances of the system keep working to control him for 4 years. My fear is that he'll ultimately end up with more power this time around and is able to get more crazy stuff through this time, potentially relating to the election process itself.

Yeah, I'm not that far from considering Harris the lesser evil. Trump's first term was pretty good (grading on a curve here...), but that's because he often listened to the Republican establishment when they told him that he was being stupid. This time around he seemingly plans to surround himself with only loyalists. In a few cases this is good -- Trump is much more anti-war than the Republican elites, for example --, but in many cases this is bad. Trump's policies on immigration and tarriffs will hurt the economy, and JD-Vance-style Christian Nationalism is almost diametrically opposed to the sort of free society I'd like to live in. The fact that Trump cited authoritarian Viktor Orbán positively in the last debate is not a good sign.

But with Harris also being very bad, I consider Trump the lesser evil because:
 - He will do some very good things, especially deregulation
 - He seems to have a strong anti-war instinct
 - He used to be a Democrat, and I think that in his heart of hearts he has no interest in promoting conservative social policies. (Though he will go along with this stuff when it's politically convenient.)
 - His administration will be a total mess, just like last time, so he won't be nearly as effective at advancing his terrible policies as Harris would be with hers.

Trump has cited nearly all authoritarians in the world as models ... strong men, decisive... we are taking Kim & Putin as the cool guys in his imaginary.

And about that first term, I would like to know more about the curve you are using. At least in terms of communications it as a complete conundrum of confusing messages - just remember covid. At this moment, the US economy is at full speed , particularly if you compare it with the rest of the world.

On war, anyone can stop the war in Ukraine (not so much in the Middle East), all you need to do is surrender or reach a botched deal and get ready for another war in 3 years or prepare to spend ridiculous money to keep the NATO borders with Russia defended.

But my bottom line is that is terribly divisive leader. Kamala is not very efficient, but she is not divisive.

Why would Cabala need to be divisive when her regime is already killing millions and destroying countries... the US included?

[Meineliebe]

Trump needs to put the squeeze on Putin after his victory so that he does not win in Ukraine.

[paxmao]

Trump needs to put the squeeze on Putin after his victory so that he does not win in Ukraine.

So many activity bots...

[liebefreund]

A certain person, a cannabis lover, supported Harris. It's not the best advertisement for her at all 

[Free Market Capitalist]

~
I like split government, where not much can get done, so that wouldn't be a terrible outcome. I think that Trump is slightly less-bad than Harris, so the ideal scenario would be for Trump to win the presidency, with Republicans in the Senate so that Trump can make conservative judicial appointments, but with Democrats in the House to try to block some of Trump's authoritarian and crazy instincts. This particular outcome isn't very likely, but it's not impossible.
~

I could probably live with this.

Yes, I like this option too, although I tend to be more right-wing I think it is good that there is alternation because when a party spends many legislatures in power it is corrupted in many ways, not only in the legal corruption. In this case it would not be alternation but Trump winning and not having all the power, which is good too.

Do you think he would be anti war if he thought he starting a war would give him more power, or that he would look weak if he didn't start a war, or if starting a war were the only way to stop the democrats from sweeping in the midterms, or if he just wanted to be a bad ass manly man?
I don't think he's pro or anti much of anything other than himself.  We already know he had to be talked out of bombing mexico and Irans nuclear facilities.  He also had no problem escalating things with North Korea.  I don't think it's that crazy to think he'd start a war because of a conspiracy theory some random started on his social network. And he'd definitely think he could blame someone else and get away with it.

I've already noticed that you really like to think about what would happen and even what would have happened if what actually happened didn't happen but I prefer to focus on the facts you know? And the facts are that before Trump won for the first time similar arguments of what would happen were made saying he could get us into WW3, and nothing could be further from that.

[Hispo]

Trump needs to put the squeeze on Putin after his victory so that he does not win in Ukraine.

So many activity bots...

Are you sure they are robots?
I personally do not see what would the objective be on using bots to spread political propaganda in such a place like this one, where there is relatively low volume of information when compared to other platforms or social media like Twitter, Facebook or even Telegram groups... I would prefer to think we are dealing with actual people who have rather generic things to say on this political weather we are going through.
Though, I don't doubt there could be some experiments of artificial intelligence going around here in the forum, with rather fruitless results.

[paxmao]

Trump needs to put the squeeze on Putin after his victory so that he does not win in Ukraine.

So many activity bots...

Are you sure they are robots?
I personally do not see what would the objective be on using bots to spread political propaganda in such a place like this one, where there is relatively low volume of information when compared to other platforms or social media like Twitter, Facebook or even Telegram groups... I would prefer to think we are dealing with actual people who have rather generic things to say on this political weather we are going through.
Though, I don't doubt there could be some experiments of artificial intelligence going around here in the forum, with rather fruitless results.

[Off-topic] Nope, but the one liners of newbies generating activity are all over the Politics and Society. They are not spreading propaganda, they are building up to create more senior accounts. I will be watching who gives them their first merit.

Back to the election, many speak of the lesser of two evils, but they are comparing only policies and that would be perfectly ok. The risks that seems to be ignored is that he may simply destroy the basis of the system. They US citizens have never in their history lived under a dictator of shorts, but with control of Congress, Senate and the SCOTUS there is ample room to generate a radical change. Trump has shown no restrain on that front.

But about policies, I think most of Trumps policies in foreign politics would take the US down a path of isolation and non-intervention. It would not be the first time in history. However,  I have serious doubts that it would make the US stronger, while I am certain that the allies of the US would be seriously concerned and may decide to go into the weapons race - all types of weapons - as they see an unreliable partner.

On internal politics, he has promised de-regulation, but that is quite a common promise. BTW some regulations are there for a reason... like protecting drinking water. It seems the US is perfectly able to grow with the regulations in place.

On economy, what I see is an intention to weaken the US dollar. I think that is not a good idea if you want to preserve the international use of the USD - and that is a strategic asset for the US.

On Kam... well, I would have liked a different candidate with a better record of achieving rather than just trying in politics.

[Free Market Capitalist]

What do you think of the electoral strategies being pursued by both sides? I may be biased but I think Trump is doing much better than Kamala, starting with the fact that he refused to debate her a second time. You can tell he's a showman, he trolled Kamala by going to McDonald's to fry fries, he was funny at the Al Smith Catholic charity dinner, which Kamala didn't go to, and yesterday he went on Joe Rogan's podcast, which already has 27 million plays, plus the clips that are pulled from there and posted on social media.

Meanwhile I think it was a mistake for Kamala to go to Fox, because in principle she had much more to lose than to win, but on top of that it seems that she does not prepare the questions she is going to be asked and if she prepares them she does a terrible job. Even in a soft interview in CNN sometimes she didn't know what to answer, she rambled in the answers and had a nervous laugh.

[theymos]

What do you think of the electoral strategies being pursued by both sides?

I didn't watch it, but I heard that Trump did well on Joe Rogan's podcast. That'll probably draw quite a few votes, considering that the podcast has so many listeners, and many of them are politically disengaged. And I agree that it was smart for Trump not to debate again, since he's a terrible debater.

All of the other things you mentioned will IMO have little impact. They're just tiny news stories. Harris's appearance on Fox may have actually helped slightly on net, since even though it generated some minor bad headlines, it removed to some extent the criticism that she wasn't doing tough interviews.

Apparently AOC and Walz are doing (or already did) some gaming on Twitch today. In principle I feel like that could be a good strategy: similar to the Joe Rogan interview, it's a much more casual form of politicking, targeting a good demographic. AOC legitimately likes gaming, and she's fairly charismatic. But probably it'll be cringy and boring. These sorts of casual, less political, less fake events are IMO good things to do at this point. Harris should go on a cooking show or something, since that's one of her actual passions.

Trump definitely has momentum in the headlines and polls, though I've heard that Harris's ground-game is massively better than Trump's. (That's stuff like using public records combined with social media posts to find people who are probably leaning Democrat but are likely not to actually vote, and sending someone to knock on their door and badger them until they commit to definitely voting ASAP.) This sort of thing doesn't make headlines, but it could make the difference in the election.

[paxmao]

What do you think of the electoral strategies being pursued by both sides?

I didn't watch it, but I heard that Trump did well on Joe Rogan's podcast. That'll probably draw quite a few votes, considering that the podcast has so many listeners, and many of them are politically disengaged. And I agree that it was smart for Trump not to debate again, since he's a terrible debater.

All of the other things you mentioned will IMO have little impact. They're just tiny news stories. Harris's appearance on Fox may have actually helped slightly on net, since even though it generated some minor bad headlines, it removed to some extent the criticism that she wasn't doing tough interviews.

Apparently AOC and Walz are doing (or already did) some gaming on Twitch today. In principle I feel like that could be a good strategy: similar to the Joe Rogan interview, it's a much more casual form of politicking, targeting a good demographic. AOC legitimately likes gaming, and she's fairly charismatic. But probably it'll be cringy and boring. These sorts of casual, less political, less fake events are IMO good things to do at this point. Harris should go on a cooking show or something, since that's one of her actual passions.

Trump definitely has momentum in the headlines and polls, though I've heard that Harris's ground-game is massively better than Trump's. (That's stuff like using public records combined with social media posts to find people who are probably leaning Democrat but are likely not to actually vote, and sending someone to knock on their door and badger them until they commit to definitely voting ASAP.) This sort of thing doesn't make headlines, but it could make the difference in the election.

Will Trump get that option when he is meeting with Putin or Xi or Kim? Will he be able to say, "oh sorry, but I am not great a international negotiations, I hope you do not mind if I cast an invisibility spell".

My guess is that with Kam you will have to live a minimum of 4 years if she wins. With Trump... a would not be so sure about his intentions. Who knows, maybe he will want to extend on the grounds that "he has to make up for the "stolen" election".

But regardless, Do you consider Trumps conduct and behaviour, as someone who is going to be a leader of nation, acceptable in general terms?

[theymos]

Will Trump get that option when he is meeting with Putin or Xi or Kim?

Debate performance is ultimately meaningless. The worst debater on Earth could be a fine president: he'd just delegate anything debate-like to someone else. The problem with Trump is not his debating skill.

But regardless, Do you consider Trumps conduct and behaviour, as someone who is going to be a leader of nation, acceptable in general terms?

No, but neither is Harris. These are both terrible candidates.

If Trump wins, hundreds of thousands of lives will be ruined due to his deportation/immigration policies. It'll be both an economic and a humanitarian disaster. The world's economy (as well as the US economy specifically) will be hurt by his aggressive deglobalization. He'll support Israel's aggression against its neighbors. He'll support friendly-to-him authoritarian regimes such as Saudi Arabia as they oppress their population, and look the other way if they invade their neighbors. He will reinstitute the maximum-pressure campaigns against Iran and Cuba, which was a humanitarian catastrophe, and risks dragging the US into a larger war with those countries. While I wouldn't support sending US troops to defend Taiwan, there's a high risk of Trump signing a "big beautiful deal" with China which explicitly lets them invade Taiwan in return for some nominal benefits for the US. Similar for Ukraine. Trump and his allies will promote a xenophobic attitude against anyone out of the norm: immigrants, non-Christians, sexually-unusual people, certain ethnic communities (not due to racism, exactly, but due to a dislike of culturally-unusual people), etc. He'll promote an anti-science attitude. He'll promote legislation which hurts Internet freedom in the name of "protecting children", such as restrictions on social media, attacking section 230, etc. By promoting his own crypto scams, he'll give crypto a bad name. He'll ramp up the war on drugs, and hamper criminal justice reform more broadly. I'd like it if he'd take his experience being the victim of state oppression/surveillance to eliminate those Orwellian systems, but he'll probably actually enhance those systems and use them against his political enemies. He will aim to basically destroy the bureaucracy, which is good in some respects, but it'll cause a lot of chaos, and a lot of innocent people will be hurt thereby. Etc.

If Harris wins, she'll continue the Biden administration's squeezing of the crypto industry, the end goal of which is to make it almost impossible to legally use crypto except through a financial intermediary (which makes crypto pointless). Like Trump, she will support Israel's aggression against their neighbors -- maybe just slightly less loudly. Like Trump, she'll add tarriffs and barriers to immigration -- just less. If China invades Taiwan, she'll send US troops to their deaths there. She'll ramp up US involvement in Ukraine in a way which could very well lead to WWIII. She's campaigning with the war-criminal Cheneys. From her time as CA AG, it's clear that she has zero problem with oppressing random people just because it's convenient for her personally or for the government; this mindset will permeate her administration, to the detriment of anyone put at its mercy. She'll continue the Biden administration's policy of persecuting anyone who stands in her administration's way (I'm not just talking about the prosecutions against Trump: see eg. this recent comment from Democrat Jamie Dimon). She doesn't actually believe in anything (she has much less ideology than Biden, and maybe even less than Trump), so she will do whatever is most politically beneficial to her; she'll only care about things that can affect her own power/legacy. She'll regulate the Internet to suppress "misinformation", also probably attacking section 230. As a Democrat, she believes in big, strong government, so she'll raise taxes, continue the Biden administration's crushing regulatory agenda, increase the size of government overall, and increase the surveillance of US citizens. She'll appoint liberal judges to the courts, who won't constrain government power at all. Etc.

I judge that Harris is slightly worse on the whole, but I'm certainly not supporting either of these psychopaths. Once the result is known, I will be relieved that we avoided the other one, but horrified at what we got.

[paxmao]

Will Trump get that option when he is meeting with Putin or Xi or Kim?

Debate performance is ultimately meaningless. The worst debater on Earth could be a fine president: he'd just delegate anything debate-like to someone else. The problem with Trump is not his debating skill.

But regardless, Do you consider Trumps conduct and behaviour, as someone who is going to be a leader of nation, acceptable in general terms?

No, but neither is Harris. These are both terrible candidates.

If Trump wins, hundreds of thousands of lives will be ruined due to his deportation/immigration policies. It'll be both an economic and a humanitarian disaster. The world's economy (as well as the US economy specifically) will be hurt by his aggressive deglobalization. He'll support Israel's aggression against its neighbors. He'll support friendly-to-him authoritarian regimes such as Saudi Arabia as they oppress their population, and look the other way if they invade their neighbors. He will reinstitute the maximum-pressure campaigns against Iran and Cuba, which was a humanitarian catastrophe, and risks dragging the US into a larger war with those countries. While I wouldn't support sending US troops to defend Taiwan, there's a high risk of Trump signing a "big beautiful deal" with China which explicitly lets them invade Taiwan in return for some nominal benefits for the US. Similar for Ukraine. Trump and his allies will promote a xenophobic attitude against anyone out of the norm: immigrants, non-Christians, sexually-unusual people, certain ethnic communities (not due to racism, exactly, but due to a dislike of culturally-unusual people), etc. He'll promote an anti-science attitude. He'll promote legislation which hurts Internet freedom in the name of "protecting children", such as restrictions on social media, attacking section 230, etc. By promoting his own crypto scams, he'll give crypto a bad name. He'll ramp up the war on drugs, and hamper criminal justice reform more broadly. I'd like it if he'd take his experience being the victim of state oppression/surveillance to eliminate those Orwellian systems, but he'll probably actually enhance those systems and use them against his political enemies. He will aim to basically destroy the bureaucracy, which is good in some respects, but it'll cause a lot of chaos, and a lot of innocent people will be hurt thereby. Etc.

If Harris wins, she'll continue the Biden administration's squeezing of the crypto industry, the end goal of which is to make it almost impossible to legally use crypto except through a financial intermediary (which makes crypto pointless). Like Trump, she will support Israel's aggression against their neighbors -- maybe just slightly less loudly. Like Trump, she'll add tarriffs and barriers to immigration -- just less. If China invades Taiwan, she'll send US troops to their deaths there. She'll ramp up US involvement in Ukraine in a way which could very well lead to WWIII. She's campaigning with the war-criminal Cheneys. From her time as CA AG, it's clear that she has zero problem with oppressing random people just because it's convenient for her personally or for the government; this mindset will permeate her administration, to the detriment of anyone put at its mercy. She'll continue the Biden administration's policy of persecuting anyone who stands in her administration's way (I'm not just talking about the prosecutions against Trump: see eg. this recent comment from Democrat Jamie Dimon). She doesn't actually believe in anything (she has much less ideology than Biden, and maybe even less than Trump), so she will do whatever is most politically beneficial to her; she'll only care about things that can affect her own power/legacy. She'll regulate the Internet to suppress "misinformation", also probably attacking section 230. As a Democrat, she believes in big, strong government, so she'll raise taxes, continue the Biden administration's crushing regulatory agenda, increase the size of government overall, and increase the surveillance of US citizens. She'll appoint liberal judges to the courts, who won't constrain government power at all. Etc.

I judge that Harris is slightly worse on the whole, but I'm certainly not supporting either of these psychopaths. Once the result is known, I will be relieved that we avoided the other one, but horrified at what we got.

Finally, someone made an analysis instead of throwing slogans.

I am missing some about "reproductive rights" AKA "choice" AKA "abortion" - Trump is going decades back on rights.

Agreed on the debate. it is a useful skill, but perhaps you can pass the ball, the caveat is that Trump in the past has been known to ignore the advice of the people who have been working their whole life on a topic and decide that "he is smarter". He is not great at delegation either.

On the effects on crypto, I consider your view better informed than mine, so minus one for Kam. Another topic would be the US dollar. On that, many believe that Trump wants a weaker USD, which would favour crypto.

Also, agreed, Kam is a "I try my best" (the best for her) candidate, not a resolutive one, I would have liked one of the governors who have proven records - probably all anyway with a degree of psychopathy. A funny - the election is the psycho against the narcissist.

I do not clearly understand Trumps strategy towards NATO and that is scary. I posted on non-proliferation because I think that the moment the nuclear umbrella of the US support is in question, most of EU would have a serious reasons to get over-armed with nukes (perhaps reaching 1000 - 2000 warheads). I am not comfortable with that. The US should not be particularly happy of having many countries that can end the world, it could eventually happen (not joking here). This exceed my other worries.

On how war-prone the candidates are, just as you said I could respect Trump's discourse on peace if, as you said, it was a peace that could be made to last in all the three major conflict zones (Ukraine, Middle East and the Pacific), but my guess is that it is not, so it is not a plus one for the guy.

On Ukraine, Ruzzia wants NATO well away from Moscow. This means re-owning Ukraine. If they are successful in war... why not another one in four years? The endgame is Ruzzia with a long border with NATO, but very close to Central Europe as opposed to very close to Moscow. The cost of maintaining deterrence along such border is bigger for Europe, in my view, than maintaining the deterrence in Ukraine. Trumps stance would weaken the existing NATO alliance.

On Taiwan, I do not see China invading Taiwan in the next few years, nor (I hope I am right) in the next decade. It is a porcupine and as a Chinese friend of mine said: "the Chinese are too busy becoming rich to bother with politics". China is not just looking at Taiwan, they are setting bases all over the Pacific and extending sometimes very aggressively.

About the Middle East, there cannot be peace when peace is not wanted. It seems that the powers that be in the region have many things in their minds, other than living in peace and are dragging the rest of the world. My thinking is that Israel has now carte-blanche because the moment they attack Iran's oil exporting facilities Kam looses the elections (price of oil). It may be less so after the elections no matter the candidate and I think that is why they are pressing as hard as they can in Lebanon - RE Gaza, there seem to be many bad reasons for them act as they are acting.

On borders, I doubt that anybody would be able to implement a mass deportation process and frankly, stopping immigration is easier said than done. I would also need to note here that Republicans did stop a bill intended to curb it while saying there was a problem.

But, OK, Trump will try harder and no matter the result he would "succeed". However, I am not sure immigration is really a problem for the US other than psychologically. There is work, there is room and you do not get much for free so basically you are building population mass. There is data showing that illegal immigrants have less criminal activity than the legal residents.

One problem I see with Trump is about the use of information -either fake or near fake. It is creating a modus operandi followed worldwide to disastrous effects.