Elections Were you wrong to vote for Donald Trump or Kamala Harris is just a terrible alternative?

[Hellowhosthat]

It's not a spot for a "decent" person. You have to have some edge and ruthlessness, and be fine with all sorts of shit you will be directly and indirectly responsible for. There's a line of course, but you really don't want a "decent" and/or "wholesome" President, because those characteristics will get y'all killed.

It's not a nice world. Nice and decent people do not belong at the top, which is why there aren't any in command anywhere. We're all ruled by neck stompers, and that's just the way it is.

You can be a decent person and still be ruthless. It's about making the decisions that are the right ones to make even if they're difficult and in situations where neither decision is ideal. It certainly requires a tough person, but I don't see why they can't also be a decent one/

 

[Seano]

You can be a decent person and still be ruthless

You really can't. To be ruthless means you have no compassion. Literally.

 

[ShadowRun]

Im not sure she was terrible. She'd have been more beuracratic and in keeping with the system retaining the status quo, but running a black woman in this environment was just failing to read the room. We're in this current environment because a lot of people lost their minds over a black male president. They were so concerned about his blackness that some even insisted it wasn't because of his blackness but the fact that he wasn't black enough because I have lots of black friends.

And Hilliary was too smart to be president.... always with the excuses and projection

" Hillary Clinton was really too smart to lead given the state of the current U.S. political ecosystem."
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/was-...rt-to-lead-in-this_b_5846fa0ae4b0b261c83427a3

 

[Rob Battisti]

Im not sure she was terrible. She'd have been more beuracratic and in keeping with the system retaining the status quo, but running a black woman in this environment was just failing to read the room. We're in this current environment because a lot of people lost their minds over a black male president. They were so concerned about his blackness that some even insisted it wasn't because of his blackness but the fact that he wasn't black enough because I have lots of black friends.

She was basically a quarter black so I don’t think that was an issue.

 

[IanEdwards]

You really can't. To be ruthless means you have no compassion. Literally.

FDR could be both

 

[Hellowhosthat]

You really can't. To be ruthless means you have no compassion. Literally.

Maybe ruthless is the wrong word, but be decisive even if that decision involves hurting people to save others.

 

[Cajun]

Im not sure she was terrible. She'd have been more beuracratic and in keeping with the system retaining the status quo, but running a black woman in this environment was just failing to read the room. We're in this current environment because a lot of people lost their minds over a black male president. They were so concerned about his blackness that some even insisted it wasn't because of his blackness but the fact that he wasn't black enough because I have lots of black friends.

None of this is true.

 

[UberHere]

None of this is true.

A lot of Republicans I know thought that about Biden (minus the skin color and gender) and I told them they were wrong. Boy did they regret voting for him. They couldn’t read the writing on the wall when he said Antifa was just an idea and that all migrants should immediately surge the border.

Too many people have been conditioned not to believe their eyes and ears, and to trust “reputable” MSM news sources.

 

[MLarson]

Kamala Harris is not a strong leader imo. So I understand why people had almost had no choice to vote for Trump.

But now that we have time to look back in hindsight, does anyone here wish they didn't vote for Trump?

In fact does anyone who voted Trump, actually vote for Kamala Harris instead?

I wouldn't vote for Kamala so I voted for Trump instead.

She would've been a terrible President.

 

[IanEdwards]

Maybe ruthless is the wrong word, but be decisive even if that decision involves hurting people to save others.

the idea that people with basic compassion *can't be* ruthless when necessary is a bizarre zero-sum, but then those are the kind of pitiful mental gymnastics and false oppositions or equivalences that are necessary to glaze Trump's balls.

Harry Truman was definitely known for being a compassionate enough dude for a President, he also dropped a nuclear fucking bomb. 'but, something something <creates entirely new standard for the purposes of undermining Deh Libs', false equivalence or opposition, thought-terminating cliche, something something'

 

[IanEdwards]

Teddy Roosevelt was both: (1) compassionate enough to see the damage Big Corporations did to the little guy and (2) ruthless enough to fucking gut their power for generations.
He was both (1) a stone badass enough to fight in wars, and get shot and not give a fuck, and fucking box, and (2) to care deeply about the natural world, the American environment. and preserving it for future generations.

I mean its almost as though (1) and (2) aren't mutually exclusive and were only thrown out there in a kneejerk moment where some fucking imbecile thought he saw a chance to own the libs. what a fucking can.

 

[USA!USA!]

Bad biased poll as “Trump is doing awesome and mostly what he ran on and the majority voted for, so of course not” isn’t an option

Every possible option assumes the respondent is at the minimum unhappy with the Presidency.

So you think everything is going swimmingly, eh?

Says a lot about you.

 

[IDGETKTFO]

No but if you're American you should be. The place is being ransacked by criminals.

That is why Trump is deporting them.

 

[Blastbeat]

i thought Trump was funny during his first term but this second term he's just pathetic.
but Kamala was not only brought in as a candidate WITHOUT a primary, she was unpopular to begin with. never forget - she was one of the first candidates to drop out in the 2020 Dem primaries. after Tulsi Gabbard checked her on live TV.
how the hell can you just insert a candidate without having your party vote on it???? im sure a lot of Democrats were unhappy with that decision.

Trump and Kamala were both shit candidates. i voted 3rd party this past election. full disclosure - i voted for RFK Jr. i think the guy is mostly a crackpot but i am 100% with him on getting petroleum derivatives out of our food and getting junk/snack food off of SNAP/EBT. and so far those two things have been done or are in the process of being done. so thats good. i cant say im a fan of a lot of his other ideas.

 

[joy2day]

My choice came down to evaluation of risk. Both candidates were terrible and presented serious risks to the country. I voted for Harris because I thought even the considerable risks she presented were going to come with less divisive and potent risks than Trump.

I would have voted for any decent moderate/centrist candidate (either Dem or Rep) over either of these choices. Unfortunately, the parties are run by the extremes these days, so you can't get a moderate/centrist candidate into office that can work with the whole government.

While preconceived ideas are significant in everyone's opinion, strong ideologies have a way of making every issue something to find a way to fit a belief for under the particular ideology (mental gymnastics to establish a belief that your side's position on the issue is the correct one)- which is very different than looking at the issue from a neutral standpoint when evaluating and forming an opinion.

I'm imperfect like everyone else; but I became far less biased when I dropped my former ideological underpinnings. I can really see how it creates biases in the way my POV changed when I dropped that ideology.

The left and the right both have a series of beliefs that are often unrelated to each other (unrelated topics)- how could you happen to believe everything on one side is correct? I don't think you reasonably can- that is where cognitive bias comes in, as well as an emotional attachment to the idea that your side is right (an emotional attachment than makes it harder to be open to your side being wrong). Basically, it's fitting the "correct" beliefs under the umbrella you want.

In any case, we will be in a much better place when the day comes that we don't have ONLY extreme candidates for president.

 

[Scerpi]

i thought Trump was funny during his first term but this second term he's just pathetic.
but Kamala was not only brought in as a candidate WITHOUT a primary, she was unpopular to begin with. never forget - she was one of the first candidates to drop out in the 2020 Dem primaries. after Tulsi Gabbard checked her on live TV.
how the hell can you just insert a candidate without having your party vote on it???? im sure a lot of Democrats were unhappy with that decision.

Trump and Kamala were both shit candidates. i voted 3rd party this past election. full disclosure - i voted for RFK Jr. i think the guy is mostly a crackpot but i am 100% with him on getting petroleum derivatives out of our food and getting junk/snack food off of SNAP/EBT. and so far those two things have been done or are in the process of being done. so thats good. i cant say im a fan of a lot of his other ideas.

 

[Kingz]

So you think everything is going swimmingly, eh?

Says a lot about you.

It should be an option in any poll worth a damn, right? Every option suggests it’s bad or you don’t know. That’s bullshit.

Not “everything” and I’ve been critical where it warrant it, but I mostly approve. Yes. Why would somebody who supported Trump’s agenda as a candidate disapprove now that he’s actually cracking down on immigration, closing the border, leveraging tariffs, and attacking the overwhelmingly left wing bureaucratic state? Not to mention the peace deals though I was furious when they did their bombing campaign in Iran; but that didn’t turn out as bad as I thought.

 

[oldshadow]

While I don't agree with how Trump handles some things but he was so much better then the democrats platform and the the cackling hen and tampon Tim that the choice was very clear.

 

[pv3Hpv3p]

I went with both are garbage... but I'm all reality, I was terrified of Harris leading the country

 

[Blastbeat]

for a quick second i thought Pelosi herself considered taking up the candidacy

but yeah, seems everyone knew Kamala was not good. so then why didnt they try for Josh Shapiro, who was quite liked amongst the party? hell, they couldve even gone with Pete Buttigieg. (although apparently according to Kamala's book, he's gay so that wouldnt work )

its gonna be really interesting to see who is on the ballot in 2028 for both Dems and Repubs. Trump is gonna leave a huge void that i dont see anyone currently being able to fill.