Trump leads Kamala in nearly every swing state [Update: Trump wins the 2024 election]

  • Thread starter Thread starter x65943
  • Start date Start date
  • Views Views 501,782
  • Replies Replies 4,413
  • Likes Likes 4
  • Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions. Saying NO to fascists/nazis - if you are one of those, you are not welcome here
Congress needs to vote on such a thing. The President can't just declare a cash dividend from taxpayer funds to select citizens.

As an example, there is a student debt forgiveness program for putting in a certain number of years in public service employment ... Congress passed the law that made this program effective in 2007.

The higher education act gives the president the power to do such a thing, in fact the former president used the same exact powers to pause the payments for the pandemic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dark_Ansem
Disagree. So did the Supreme Court,

After it was packed with partisan judges that have a strong record of damaging the law and doing whatever the heck they want to. The courts have been in shambles and Biden really should have added more good judges to offset the former presidents's appointees.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dark_Ansem
A supreme court of partisan hacks, so they're as authoritative as a bag of dicks. Even less so considering Thomas is there illegitimately since he's a corrupt crone.

partisan judges


When Biden's administration tried to revive it even after the loss at the SupCt, a federal appeals court shot it down and then the SupCt unanimously refused to hear the govt's appeal. Biden's been President and had years to push for this from Congress, but he waited until the election was warming up to attempt it with an executive order. Obvious (failed) vote pander.

Nobody "took" anything from you. But if you took a loan, you need to pay it back. You'll feel better and live better once you do.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Dark_Ansem
When Biden's administration tried to revive it even after the loss at the SupCt, a federal appeals court shot it down and then the SupCt unanimously refused to hear the govt's appeal. Biden's been President and had years to push for this from Congress, but he waited until the election was warming up to attempt it with an executive order. Obvious (failed) vote pander.

Nobody "took" anything from you. But if you took a loan, you need to pay it back. You'll feel better and live better once you do.

It was being forgiven until the Republicans took the money away again, that's taking the money back. How would you like it if someone did that to you? That's the better part of a new car, enough for improving your house, paying off other debts so you can spend more, could be enough to move out, etc..
 
The supreme court didn't disagree. The conservative justices disagreed with the liberals dissenting. Partisan hacks to be sure. Politicians in robes... but least of all because of the student debt ruling. They've made plenty of other disastrous rulings since then that are much worse, like reversing the Chevron decision and giving Trump immunity to commit crimes~
 
It was being forgiven until the Republicans took the money away again, that's taking the money back. How would you like it if someone did that to you? That's the better part of a new car, enough for improving your house, paying off other debts so you can spend more, could be enough to move out, etc..

It was never your money, and nothing was taken. You are literally pissed because you didn't get let off the hook for money you did take from someone else, and then are asking "how would you like it if someone did that to you?"
 
Congress needs to vote on such a thing. The President can't just declare a cash dividend from taxpayer funds to select citizens.

As an example, there is a student debt forgiveness program for putting in a certain number of years in public service employment ... Congress passed the law that made this program effective in 2007.

Also all of the abortion tomfoolery.
Post automatically merged:

It was never your money, and nothing was taken. You are literally pissed because you didn't get let off the hook for money you did take from someone else, and then are asking "how would you like it if someone did that to you?"

It's a debt the government holds, if they want to forgive it it's their right to. How do you not understand this? I'm not going around and stealing from random people, the government told me I didn't have to pay it back and then was forced to say "nevermind". That's just wrong.
 
It's a debt the government holds, if they want to forgive it it's their right to. How do you not understand this? I'm not going around and stealing from random people, the government told me I didn't have to pay it back and then was forced to say "nevermind". That's just wrong.

Agreed. But it's Congress that has that authority, not the President.

Fortunately, Biden has immunity for his illegal attempt to throw taxpayer money around like it was his alone to give.
 
I'm here to shit on the existence of this thread.

I think polling isn't worth stressing over in this election. Not because it's inherently wrong, but instead because of a few particular facts about this election that make it more likely noise than signal.

First, the candidates are very obviously avoiding dissemination of their intended policies, to the extent such policies exist. So there isn't new, non-tabloid information affecting the polls-over-time. What 'policies' are announced are really straightforward pandering rather than something that translates into a bill that will (ever) be passed through Congress. We're left with gaffe-of-the-week reactions from the public instead of perceptible shifts based on something more likely to survive through the election (like such voters' opinions about newly announced actual policies).

Second, both sides have huge incentives to push a narrative that the polls are 'close'. Trump, because he's Mr. 46% (ceiling) so the mere act of self-inflation coincides with portraying a close race.

Democrats are historically considered to be lower-propensity voters. In the 2016 election, their hagiography is that Democrats disproportionately stayed home or voted third party instead of choking down Hillary - because they thought she had it in the bag. Democrats are disproportionately represented among the media, including in polling. So, to the extent there's editorial influence, it's going to be to pump up Trump, in order to prevent complacency among their voters, to prevent a repeat of (their perception of) what happened in 2016.

Third, I could talk about both campaigns' strategic mistakes that create incentives to skew polls but that'd turn into substantive policy debate that's likely to distract from my main goal here.

I am tipping my hand here, I think Trump is the weaker candidate. But for all these reasons the polling isn't likely to tell us if that's true, or by how much, actually.

If you want to shit on each other for general partisan reasons, I recommend making a more germane thread. Don't let polls get you down, or drive the shitting and counter-shitting.
 
I'm here to shit on the existence of this thread.

I think polling isn't worth stressing over in this election. Not because it's inherently wrong, but instead because of a few particular facts about this election that make it more likely noise than signal.

First, the candidates are very obviously avoiding dissemination of their intended policies, to the extent such policies exist. So there isn't new, non-tabloid information affecting the polls-over-time. What 'policies' are announced are really straightforward pandering rather than something that translates into a bill that will (ever) be passed through Congress. We're left with gaffe-of-the-week reactions from the public instead of perceptible shifts based on something more likely to survive through the election (like such voters' opinions about newly announced actual policies).

Second, both sides have huge incentives to push a narrative that the polls are 'close'. Trump, because he's Mr. 46% (ceiling) so the mere act of self-inflation coincides with portraying a close race.

Democrats are historically considered to be lower-propensity voters. In the 2016 election, their hagiography is that Democrats disproportionately stayed home or voted third party instead of choking down Hillary - because they thought she had it in the bag. Democrats are disproportionately represented among the media, including in polling. So, to the extent there's editorial influence, it's going to be to pump up Trump, in order to prevent complacency among their voters, to prevent a repeat of (their perception of) what happened in 2016.

Third, I could talk about both campaigns' strategic mistakes that create incentives to skew polls but that'd turn into substantive policy debate that's likely to distract from my main goal here.

I am tipping my hand here, I think Trump is the weaker candidate. But for all these reasons the polling isn't likely to tell us if that's true, or by how much, actually.

If you want to shit on each other for general partisan reasons, I recommend making a more germane thread. Don't let polls get you down, or drive the shitting and counter-shitting.

I voted in the ill fated 2016 election, if only more people did... Hopefully with some of these famous people telling the young adults to go out and vote will help move the needle in the correct direction.

Polls have been massively wrong and have inherit bias and people really need to go and vote even if it's a 1% chance for their candidate to win/lose...

Maybe one day we'll adopt a better system that doesn't encourage this two pary cluster and we'll have less polarizing election campaigns and policies that are less regressive....
 
  • Like
Reactions: IncredulousP
Who's quinnipiac, another parrot?
It's a liberal leaning college. On the one hand they are relatively inaccurate when you look at how they predicted the last few election cycles. However, the way in which they are inaccurate is by typically overestimate the Democrats in races. So this one alongside the NYT/Siena poll (which is actually considered relatively accurate and also liberal leaning) do showcase some potentially very concerning trends for Harris.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dark_Ansem
The election is roughly one month away and speculation has little value. Vote and trust that good sense will triumph~
 
It's a liberal leaning college. On the one hand they are relatively inaccurate when you look at how they predicted the last few election cycles. However, the way in which they are inaccurate is by typically overestimate the Democrats in races. So this one alongside the NYT/Siena poll (which is actually considered relatively accurate and also liberal leaning) do showcase some potentially very concerning trends for Harris.

Sure, but these are likely voters aka people who haven't registered
Honestly a bit sad there's so many of them but hey
Post automatically merged:

The election is roughly one month away and speculation has little value. Vote and trust that good sense will triumph~

If there's something I can't trust is common sense being widespread
 

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum