The Stupid Fucking 2024 United States Presidential Election

[Red]

The 2020 Election feels like it was just yesterday, doesn't it? Only this time the polls are much closer and it really looks like it's gonna be a tossup, even with Harris's slight lead.

At this point, I'm kind of just going to assume Trump is going to win. The polls are very tight, and last two elections they were off in his favor. He's very likely going to lose the popular vote, but with our system of giving power to empty pieces of land, this election is going to come down to probably a hundred thousand votes in Pennsylvania, probably even less.

Putting aside how fucking idiotic that is and just being more of a reason to get rid of the electoral college (Oh no, if we abolish the electoral college campaigns will focus on the more populated areas, which is so much worse than the current system where they're focusing on literally less than ten states!), the main things I'm worried about regarding a Trump presidency are the current war in Ukraine and climate change. Other issues are important sure, but these far outweigh them by several orders of magnitude. If the only things at stake were healthcare and upsetting Democrats with Trump just being in the White House, I wouldn't be all that concerned really.

Harris is easily much better than Trump on those issues. I would expect Trump to be on Putin's side during the war (which would not just be bad news for Ukraine, but the stability of Europe, which is kind of a problem? idk it's just a backbone of the world's economy and stability ), and I would expect him at the very least greatly reduce US aid to Ukraine. And of course on climate change, as far as I can tell both candidates support nuclear power (the Biden administration has greatly invested in it) but Harris doesn't support fossil fuels and wants to keep environmental regulations in place, making her the better candidate on that as well.

Optimistically, in the event of a Trump presidency, Congress will block him from cutting off support to Ukraine, and if he lets Russia go too far and they get onto NATO territory, he won't really have any choice at that point. And on climate change, the whole attitude amongst Republicans has been shifting, at least away from denial. Now they're saying it won't be that bad or it isn't all man made... it's an improvement I guess.

Anyway, what do you think

[teo123]

but the stability of Europe

I think the tensions between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia are way more likely to lead to a war in Croatia than the war in Ukraine somehow spreading to Croatia. The perception is (in my opinion, accurate) that Serbs are treated badly in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Milorad Dodik, who is basically the leader of the Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina, is calling Aleksandar Vučić (the president of Serbia) to solve that problem by militarily attacking Bosnia and Herzegovina. Let's say Aleksandar Vučić actually does that. Croatia strongly supports Bosnia and Herzegovina, and will likely try to help Bosnia and Herzegovina by attacking Serbia.
However, you might argue that both the fear of the war in Ukraine spreading to Croatia and the fear of the tensions in the Balkans escalating to a war are misguided. After all, we are living in by far the most peaceful time in human history. War is less likely now than it ever was.

[Red]

I think the tensions between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia are way more likely to lead to a war in Croatia than the war in Ukraine somehow spreading to Croatia.

We're talking about Europe in general Teo, particularly Eastern Europe, many of whom are members of NATO and are more adjacent to Ukraine (Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Poland).

Not trying to put you down but Croatia really is not a very significant player on the world stage.

The perception is (in my opinion, accurate) that Serbs are treated badly in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Milorad Dodik, who is basically the leader of the Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina, is calling Aleksandar Vučić (the president of Serbia) to solve that problem by militarily attacking Bosnia and Herzegovina. Let's say Aleksandar Vučić actually does that. Croatia strongly supports Bosnia and Herzegovina, and will likely try to help Bosnia and Herzegovina by attacking Serbia.

The thing is there currently is no armed organized conflict between the two right now, so there is no real threat to Europe from there. I don't see a war from there as very likely, since Croatia is a NATO member and Serbia risks bringing them into the fight like that if they go to war with Bosnia.

However, you might argue that both the fear of the war in Ukraine spreading to Croatia and the fear of the tensions in the Balkans escalating to a war are misguided. After all, we are living in by far the most peaceful time in human history. War is less likely now than it ever was.

That's of course true, but that doesn't change the fact that Russia invading Ukraine broke a decades-long peace in the continent (barring a few skirmishes and the Yugoslav Wars) and is currently a massive threat to its stability. It is a general trend of a peace yes, but that doesn't mean it can't be broken.

[aroneous]

Not that I really have the "right" to talk about this as I don't plan on voting -- doing so from abroad is not so simple, and I'm from a blue state anyways (California) so my vote quite literally would not make a difference -- but I think that the healthiest approach is indeed to just assume that Trump will win, and be pleasantly surprised if Kamala Harris somehow ends up beating him. Political issues aside, I'm not even sure that Americans are ready for having a non-white female president. And the fact that the Democrats were off to such a rocky start by initially nominating Biden for a second term doesn't help at all.

There's also the question of how long Trump will survive in office, in the literal sense. Given the recent assassination attempts, if this continues after he is elected then it is only a matter of time before one of them is successful. So you may also want to ask yourself how comfortable you would be with JD Vance as president. I think it's unfortunate that pretty much every developed country has converged to a style of government that gives a disproportionate amount of power to a single individual that somehow "represents" the country as a whole, but perhaps it's just in our fundamental nature to seek out singular leaders to give ourselves some sense of guidance and direction.

The thing is there currently is no armed organized conflict between the two right now, so there is no real threat to Europe from there. I don't see a war from there as very likely, since Croatia is a NATO member and Serbia risks bringing them into the fight like that if they go to war with Bosnia.

I do somewhat relate to Teo's concerns as I have relatives in Slovenia (right next to Croatia). I understand that it detracts from the more pressing concerns regarding former East Bloc countries, but at the same time as Americans we can sometimes fail to appreciate how close European countries are to one another. Ukraine is pretty large and most of the fighting is happening in the east, so there's a good amount of buffer there. But if the fighting spreads to one of its western bordering countries, that could have much more immediate consequences for their neighbors.

That's of course true, but that doesn't change the fact that Russia invading Ukraine broke a decades-long peace in the continent (barring a few skirmishes and the Yugoslav Wars) and is currently a massive threat to its stability. It is a general trend of a peace yes, but that doesn't mean it can't be broken.

My latent, perhaps irrational fear is that China would end up siding with Russia and start military campaigns in East Asia, which would take the world more in the direction of a world war 3 scenario. Again, I think it's not at all likely, and I like to think that humans have collectively "grown out of" the desire for war and domination, this sort of thing already seems incredibly out of place in the year 2024. It's something that western developed countries have mostly moved past (with the last major instances of Western military aggression being the Cold War proxy conflicts), but I always have some fear that we would be forced into something mostly out of self-defense.

[Red]

Political issues aside, I'm not even sure that Americans are ready for having a non-white female president. And the fact that the Democrats were off to such a rocky start by initially nominating Biden for a second term doesn't help at all.

I don't think having a non-white female president would mean much in and of itself. A black man won the presidency twice, and a woman won the popular vote right after him, so I think Americans have mostly shifted to not really giving much of a shit about that. Policy is what really matters, and I anticipate she'd be pretty much the same as Biden.

Biden was initially nominated because he was the incumbent and incumbents tend to have a massive advantage, but there were doubts this time because of his age. But it isn't like this is some no-name politician, everyone is familiar with Harris. I'm not sure if nominating her instead at the beginning would've made much difference, but who knows.

There's also the question of how long Trump will survive in office, in the literal sense. Given the recent assassination attempts, if this continues after he is elected then it is only a matter of time before one of them is successful.

Sort of a gambler's fallacy there. I think the more attempts on his life there are the stronger his SS protections are going to be (How much personal protection Putin does have?). Look at how many assassination attempts were made on Fidel Castro:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_assas ... y_attempts
(I think the real number is much lower than that, but there were tons of attempts on his life regardless).

So you may also want to ask yourself how comfortable you would be with JD Vance as president.

Having him in office would probably be better since he doesn't have Trump's political pull and cult of personality. Look at how quickly MAGA supporters were willing to turn on Pence.

I think it's unfortunate that pretty much every developed country has converged to a style of government that gives a disproportionate amount of power to a single individual that somehow "represents" the country as a whole, but perhaps it's just in our fundamental nature to seek out singular leaders to give ourselves some sense of guidance and direction.

It might make people more willing to get politically involved if there's some figurehead to rally behind/blame problems on.

I think having a singular figurehead can be pretty important though to make military decisions and quickly respond to disasters and serve as a foreign representative. It might be a bit antiquated (I'm interested in testing out other forms of democratic governance, the US's system is the result of a lot of compromises and is far from ideal) but I don't see it being phased out any time soon.

I do somewhat relate to Teo's concerns as I have relatives in Slovenia (right next to Croatia). I understand that it detracts from the more pressing concerns regarding former East Bloc countries, but at the same time as Americans we can sometimes fail to appreciate how close European countries are to one another. Ukraine is pretty large and most of the fighting is happening in the east, so there's a good amount of buffer there. But if the fighting spreads to one of its western bordering countries, that could have much more immediate consequences for their neighbors.

I doubt a war will break out there any time soon since it'd be non-NATO countries getting involved against NATO. Putin winning Ukraine though would have some serious implications for Europe, which is why a Trump presidency is rather concerning.

My latent, perhaps irrational fear is that China would end up siding with Russia and start military campaigns in East Asia, which would take the world more in the direction of a world war 3 scenario.

I don't think that'll happen. China is highly dependent on exports for its economy, and starting wars in Asia would result in sanctions. Also, given how the war in Ukraine is going pretty awfully for Russia, who were so cocksure they'd win within a week, that's probably made China less inclined to for instance take over Taiwan. Also, Taiwan is a non-NATO ally, meaning they'd be getting NATO and other non-NATO allies in the area involved (and Trump isn't cozy with Jingping as he is with Putin).

Again, I think it's not at all likely, and I like to think that humans have collectively "grown out of" the desire for war and domination, this sort of thing already seems incredibly out of place in the year 2024.

It certainly is a big step back for peace and diplomacy, but it could have some benefits, again discouraging China from taking Taiwan, and it may lead to the end of Putin.

[Red]

Looks like Trump has a pretty good chance of winning, despite Harris still leading in the polls (although by slightly less). Best we can hope for at this point is enough electors deciding to have some cojones and casting their votes for Harris, but I'm not gonna count on that.

Not ruling out any possibility for a Harris victory (most predictions still have it split 50/50), but I'm not counting on it. I'm not really sure what else they could do really, especially at this point.

[Red]

On the bright side I won my bet.